CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01691
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2025

Matter of Sutphin v. UPS

Wiley Sutphin, a UPS driver, sustained work-related injuries across three separate claims. The Special Fund was held liable for the first two claims, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation (LM) for the third. A WCLJ declined to apportion liability among the claims. LM sought Board review for the third claim, requesting apportionment, but failed to file separate applications for the other two claims as instructed by a Workers' Compensation Board advisory directive. The Board denied LM's application, citing non-compliance. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the Board's directive requiring separate filings was not explicitly stated on the form, in its instructions, or in the Board's regulations. Consequently, the Board's denial of review constituted an abuse of discretion, and the case was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureBoard ReviewAdministrative LawAbuse of DiscretionClaim ApportionmentForm Submission GuidelinesRegulatory ComplianceNew York CourtsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ9076336
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

BOBBIETTE BROWN vs. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded an interim discovery order. This order compelled the defendant to produce redacted disciplinary write-ups by four supervisors for the preceding three years. The Board found the request untimely, raised for the first time at a mandatory settlement conference without prior diligent pursuit, and potentially overbroad. Further, the Board was concerned about potential privacy violations and prejudice to unidentifiable disciplined employees.

Petition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDisciplinary Write-upsPrivacy RightsFishing ExpeditionLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Cumulative Psychiatric InjuryGood Faith Personnel ActionQualified Medical Evaluator
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AIG Europe (Netherlands), N v. v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff AIG Europe (Netherlands), N.V. ("AIG") initiated a subrogation action against Defendant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("UPS") following damage to an x-ray machine during shipment. AIG, acting as the insurer for Philips Medical Systems Nederlands, B.V., asserted claims for breach of contract, bailment obligations, and tort. UPS sought summary judgment to limit its liability to $9,479.61, while AIG cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing against the enforceability of any liability limitation and its invalidity under the Carmack Amendment. The Court denied both motions for summary judgment on the contractual liability issues, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence and terms of a binding agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the applicability of the Carmack Amendment and the material deviation doctrine could not be determined as a matter of law. However, UPS's motion for summary judgment on AIG's tort claim was granted as it was unopposed.

SubrogationContract LawBailmentTort LawSummary JudgmentCarmack AmendmentInterstate CommerceLimitation of LiabilityShipping DamageX-ray Machine
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shoga v. Fischer

The petitioner, a prisoner, faced disciplinary charges for refusing a direct order and harassment after making inappropriate comments to a social worker about her personal appearance and marital status, despite being told to stop. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty of these charges, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. The court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the guilt. The court also rejected the petitioner's claims regarding improperly denied witnesses and alleged hearing officer bias.

Prison DisciplinaryHarassmentRefusing Direct OrderSubstantial EvidenceWitness DenialHearing Officer BiasAdministrative AppealCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPrisoner RightsCorrectional Facility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goncalves v. Goord

An inmate, referred to as petitioner, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules for making threats and engaging in conduct involving the threat of violence. The charges stemmed from a letter sent to the Attica Correctional Facility Superintendent, Victor T. Herbert, detailing plans to assassinate officers and Herbert himself. During the disciplinary hearing, the petitioner admitted to writing the letter, stating it was an expression of frustration and a desire for transfer. The court, citing substantial evidence including the misbehavior report, the letter, and testimony from a correction officer, a social worker (who found the petitioner not psychotic), and the petitioner, confirmed the determination. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the determination was upheld.

Prison disciplinary rulesthreats of violenceinmate misconductAttica Correctional Facilitymisbehavior reportCPLR article 78 proceedingsubstantial evidence reviewmental health evaluationcorrectional servicessuperintendent threat
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. 533217
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

Matter of Kromer v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions

Claimant Douglas A. Kromer established a workers' compensation claim for a work-related rotator cuff tear in his left shoulder. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 35% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left arm, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to 20%, crediting the opinion of Gerald Coniglio, an orthopedic surgeon. The Board further ruled that Kromer was not entitled to a further SLU award due to prior left elbow SLU awards totaling 30%, which exceeded the current 20% award. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further consideration. The court found that the Board failed to consider whether the shoulder injury resulted in an increased loss of use of the left arm beyond the prior elbow injuries and also lacked a rational basis for not adding value for a posterior extension defect in the SLU calculation, departing from its own precedent.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Rotator Cuff InjuryShoulder InjuryLeft ArmPrior Injury OffsetMedical OpinionImpairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Romano

Respondent, Benedict F. Romano, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, maintained an office within the First Judicial Department. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moved for his immediate suspension based on substantial admissions of professional misconduct. Ms. A., a client, reported that respondent conducted an intimate physical examination during an initial consultation for a workers' compensation case. Respondent admitted to the examination but denied impropriety, claiming it was essential for case assessment. A Hearing Panel sustained the charge and recommended a two-year suspension. Subsequently, another client, Ms. D., accused respondent of similar misconduct, taking photographs while improperly touching her. The DDC's motion for immediate suspension was granted by the Court, finding that respondent's actions, and his inability to comprehend their impropriety, posed an immediate threat to the public interest, constituting professional misconduct under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (ii) and (iii).

Attorney DisciplinaryProfessional MisconductSexual MisconductSuspension of AttorneyDR 1-102 (A) (8)22 NYCRR 603.4Fitness to Practice LawUncontested EvidenceSubstantial Admission Under OathDisciplinary Committee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiDomenico v. C & S Aeromatik Supplies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Frank DiDomenico, was injured by a leaking hazardous material package while employed by United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS's subsequent dilatory responses to discovery demands and willful destruction of crucial evidence, including the package and related records, prevented DiDomenico from identifying and suing the third-party shipper. This conduct also prejudiced co-defendant CA Aromatics Co., which destroyed its own records due to UPS's delays. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of sanctions, finding UPS's actions constituted willful non-compliance with court orders and spoliation of evidence. Consequently, UPS's answer was stricken, and summary judgment was granted to DiDomenico against UPS for impairing his right to sue, and to CA Aromatics Co. for indemnification.

Spoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsCPLR 3126Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionHazardous MaterialsDocument DestructionAppellate Review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 474 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational