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

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okonski v. Pollio Dairy Products Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1987 and was subsequently paid temporary total disability benefits. Medical evaluations in December 1987 and January 1988 indicated that the claimant had a continuing partial disability but could perform light duty work, which the employer offered. The employer contended that the claimant's loss of wages after January 18, 1988, was due to her failure to accept this light duty offer, constituting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not voluntarily leave the labor market, finding her actions, including her initial reluctance to work the night shift due to its impact on her daughter's well-being and her attempts to contact the employer for alternative arrangements, to be reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its findings.

Workers Compensation AppealLight Duty EmploymentVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketPartial DisabilityWage LossEmployer OfferReasonableness of RefusalNight ShiftDaughter's Well-beingHuman Resources Manager
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North v. New Venture Gear

The Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on July 27, 2007, ruled that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. This ruling stemmed from an earlier determination by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, who found that the claimant refused a light-duty work offer from the employer and failed to maintain an attachment to the labor market after sustaining work-related wrist, neck, and shoulder injuries. The employer had initially paid benefits but sought suspension in July 2003. The Board’s decision was affirmed, as the court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the light-duty assignment was consistent with the claimant's medical restrictions, as determined by Dr. Richard Zogby, an orthopedic surgeon. The court also noted that the issue of involuntary retirement was not raised or developed by the claimant before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLight-Duty Work RefusalPermanent Partial DisabilityWork RestrictionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionFactual DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceClaimant AppealEmployer Benefits Suspension
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schmeiser v. Wnuk

The claimant sustained an injury during her employment with an uninsured employer. The central legal question was whether her employment constituted 'covered employment' under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, particularly concerning the definition of a 'domestic worker' in section 3 (subd. 1, group 12). The employer contended the claimant was a governess and thus not a domestic worker. However, the claimant testified to regularly performing household duties such as cooking, washing dishes, and cleaning, presenting a question of fact. The Workmen’s Compensation Board resolved this factual dispute in favor of the claimant, finding her employment to be covered. The appeal from this decision and award was unanimously affirmed, with the court finding no prejudice to the appellant.

Workers' CompensationCovered EmploymentDomestic WorkerHouseworkUninsured EmployerAppealAffirmationGovernessQuestion of FactEmployment Definition
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Syracuse v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case involves the City of Syracuse's unilateral implementation of procedures to terminate General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits for firefighters. Two firefighters were injured and receiving benefits; one reported late and left early for light duty, the other refused to report. The City held hearings and terminated their benefits, prompting the Syracuse Fire Fighters Association (Union) to file an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging a violation of the Taylor Law. The Administrative Law Judge initially dismissed the charge, but PERB reversed this decision, finding that the procedures for terminating such benefits are a subject of mandatory bargaining. The City then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court confirmed PERB's determination, holding that the City's unilateral implementation of benefit termination procedures constituted an improper practice and that a City Charter's notice of claim provision did not apply to improper practice charges filed with PERB.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aImproper Practice ChargeMandatory BargainingCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessLight Duty AssignmentNotice of ClaimCPLR Article 78 Proceeding
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Rome v. State of New York Public Employment Relations Board

The City of Rome eliminated the position of acting purchasing agent and transferred the duties to non-unit employees. Marilyn McLiesh's bargaining unit, CSEA, filed an improper practice charge, leading PERB to order McLiesh's reinstatement with back pay. The City of Rome initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that McLiesh's prolonged service as an acting agent violated NY Constitution, article V, § 6. The Supreme Court agreed, annulling the reinstatement and back pay order. Upon appeal by CSEA and PERB, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, ruling that McLiesh's employment beyond the statutory temporary period was unconstitutional and therefore PERB exceeded its authority by ordering her reinstatement.

CPLR Article 78Improper Practice ProceedingPublic Employment Relations BoardCivil Service LawConstitutional ViolationReinstatement OrderBack PayProvisional EmployeeBargaining Unit WorkAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torre v. Logic Technology, Inc.

The claimant, employed by a contractor for General Electric, sustained a spinal cord injury while participating in a fitness class at the G.E. Fitness Center during work hours. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the injury arose from and occurred during his employment, leading to an award of workers’ compensation benefits. The employer's workers' compensation carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination. It concluded that the employer sponsored the activity by offering membership fee reimbursements and by encouraging participation for client development, thus establishing a work-related connection under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (1) despite the voluntary, off-duty nature of the activity.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-Duty Athletic ActivityEmployer SponsorshipSpinal Cord InjuryFitness CenterEmployee BenefitsReimbursementClient DevelopmentSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. No. 70
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

The Matter of City of Long Beach v. New York State Public Employment , Relations Board

This case addresses whether the Taylor Law requires municipalities to engage in collective bargaining over pre-termination procedures for employees absent for over a year due to line-of-duty injuries under Civil Service Law § 71. The City of Long Beach challenged a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) ruling that mandated such bargaining. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, which had sided with the City, and reinstated the Supreme Court's judgment affirming PERB. The Court held that legislative intent to remove this issue from mandatory bargaining was not clear, and therefore, pre-termination procedures are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

Collective BargainingTaylor LawCivil Service Law § 71Public Employment Relations BoardMunicipal EmploymentTermination ProceduresLine-of-Duty InjuryStatutory InterpretationMandatory BargainingDue Process
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,379 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