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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1983

Claim of McIntosh v. International Business Machines, Inc.

Claimant suffered a back injury on September 29, 1977, while working for International Business Machines, Inc. She continued to work until October 21, 1977, but subsequently experienced frequent absences due to disability. The Workers' Compensation Board made varying determinations regarding her disability, ultimately classifying it as a permanent partial disability with a 75% earning capacity. Despite conflicting medical opinions from numerous doctors, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The decision appealed from found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceBoard DeterminationBack InjuryEmployment InjuryAffirmed DecisionJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Finocchio v. W. A. White Underwear Corp.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, sustained an injury in 1955 and was later found to have a permanent partial disability in 1963. In 1974, her employer ceased operations, leading to an inability to find new work. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits for reduced earnings, determining she remained in the labor market. The employer appealed, arguing that the reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient proof that the claimant’s disability contributed to her reduced earnings after her employer went out of business, and remitted the case for further findings on the cause of the reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsEconomic ConditionsCausationBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cozzi v. Christensen & Nielson, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 15, 1973, which denied him reduced earnings. Following a compensable back injury in 1967 and subsequent medical advice for limited work, the claimant established his own contracting firm. He contended that his business income constituted "profits" rather than "earnings," which would affect his wage-earning capacity under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(5-a). The court disagreed, stating that the characterization of income as profits or earnings is a factual determination for the Board, and found ample evidence that the claimant performed "general work" in his business, justifying the classification of his income as earnings. Furthermore, the court upheld the denial of reduced earnings, concluding that the claimant's total economic benefit, encompassing his draw, retained earnings, and accumulation of assets, averaged over $150 per week. The Board's decision was therefore affirmed.

reduced earningsworkers' compensation lawself-employment incomeprofits vs earningswage earning capacityappellate reviewfact-findingeconomic benefitasset accumulationmedical restrictions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Virtuoso v. Chevrolet

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury and later lost employment with his employer due to a disagreement, not his injury. He subsequently received unemployment benefits and performed work for his wife's business. Despite claiming a worsening back condition limited his work ability, he was evasive about his income from these subsequent employments. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for reduced earnings, finding no causal link between his lost employment income and his back condition, and noting his failure to provide income details. This appeal affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no evidence to warrant a reduced earnings award.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsWork-related InjuryCausationLoss of EmploymentIncome EvasionUnemployment BenefitsBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pratt v. Long Island Jewish Medical

The claimant, who sustained a work-related injury in 1999, was classified with a permanent partial disability and subsequently established a psychotherapy business. The workers’ compensation carrier sought to reduce her earnings award, prompting a dispute over which business expenses were legitimate deductions for calculating her reduced earnings. The Workers’ Compensation Board applied a "necessary/mandatory" versus "optional/elective" expense standard, categorizing various business expenses as optional, thereby decreasing the claimant's award. The court, led by Justice Lahtinen, reviewed this methodology and the Board’s factual determinations. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support its analysis of business expenses for self-employed individuals in workers’ compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced Earnings AwardSelf-Employment IncomeBusiness ExpensesNecessary ExpensesOptional ExpensesWorkers' Compensation BoardIncome CalculationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1979

Claim of Nannery v. GAF Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant with a permanent partial disability following a back injury in 1968. The claimant, who later became the sole owner of a bar and restaurant, had his reduced earnings award after June 14, 1976, challenged by the Board's finding that his business income was "profits and not wages." The court determined that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence, as the claimant's active participation in the business, such as ordering supplies and bartending, indicated that at least a portion of his income constituted actual earnings. The court ruled that completely disregarding such evidence in determining actual earnings was incorrect, even if the income was a mix of wages and profits. Therefore, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsBusiness IncomeWages vs. ProfitsActual EarningsSubstantial EvidenceRemittalWorkers' Compensation LawAppealBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogiba v. Business Services Co. of Utica

The plaintiff, Robert Ogiba, sued his former employer, Business Services Company of Utica (BSC), alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after his termination as a copier technician during a company-wide downsizing in 1992. Ogiba claimed his termination was due to his age, citing comments made by superiors and the retention of younger employees. BSC countered that Ogiba was terminated due to unsatisfactory job performance compared to coworkers, which was the criterion used for a reduction in force. The court found that while Ogiba met the satisfactory performance element of a prima facie case, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer age discrimination, noting the 'same actor inference' and the innocuous nature of alleged discriminatory comments. Consequently, BSC's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentADEADisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceJob PerformancePrima Facie CaseEvidentiary StandardDiscrimination Inference
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1985

Sprague v. International Business Machines Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Orange County Insulation Corp., a third-party defendant, against an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order had granted International Business Machines Corp.'s, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, motion to compel further responses to a notice for discovery and inspection. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied the motion, ruling that the workers' compensation carrier's claim file for the plaintiff in the underlying action was protected as material prepared for litigation. The court emphasized that the requesting party failed to demonstrate that the material could not be duplicated or that its withholding would lead to injustice. Additionally, the court found the request for the entire file overly broad and noted that the notice for discovery should have been served directly upon the non-party carrier.

Discovery DisputeAppellate ReviewPrivileged InformationWork Product DoctrineCPLRThird-Party DiscoveryMotion to CompelOverly Broad DiscoveryWorkers' Compensation Claim FileLitigation Preparation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,985 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