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

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gallo v. Village of Bronxville Police Department

Claimant, a police sergeant, filed for workers' compensation benefits after suffering a myocardial infarction on December 18, 2008. He experienced symptoms after exercising and ascending stairs at work, leading to a diagnosis of myocardial infarction. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the infarction was caused by the stair climbing and arose out of his employment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's ruling, citing substantial medical evidence from two cardiologists who opined that the work-related stair climbing precipitated the myocardial infarction, even with a preexisting coronary artery disease.

myocardial infarctionwork-related injuryworkers' compensationaccidental injurymedical causationpreexisting conditionstair climbingpolice sergeantappealBoard decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe of Sayville

A claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer-provided vehicle to complete a sale to his brother-in-law. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, a decision challenged by the employer and its insurance carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant's activity, though off-schedule, was work-related. This was supported by coworker testimony regarding the employer's encouragement of off-site sales and the claimant's history of sales to family members, establishing a factual basis for the Board's resolution that the activity was reasonable and work-related.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentAutomobile SalesWork-Related ActivityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierFactual Question
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. WCB No. 6901 2052
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sunukjian v. Price Chopper

Claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a shoulder injury in 2002, with a schedule loss of use award in 2004. In 2010, the schedule loss of use award was rescinded, and the claimant was classified with a permanent partial disability. The employer and its carrier sought credit for prior schedule loss of use payments. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied the credit but, upon reconsideration, ruled in favor of the employer. The claimant appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, holding that the employer was entitled to the credit and had not waived this right.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityEmployer ReimbursementCreditWaiverStipulationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCarpal Tunnel Syndrome
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Cale

Claimant, a Canadian national, worked as a social worker at New York University Medical Center under a TN visa. After her inpatient position was eliminated, she applied for partial unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was ineligible to receive them because she was not available for employment. The court affirmed this decision, noting that a non-United States citizen must have valid work authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Her TN visa restricted her to working for a specific employer, NYUMC, and she was not authorized to seek employment elsewhere, thereby rendering her unavailable for work and ineligible for benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceVisa RestrictionsWork AuthorizationImmigration StatusTN VisaEligibility for BenefitsAvailability for EmploymentAppellate DecisionNew York LawSocial Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Craig v. Jefferson Auto Painting Co.

The claimant, an automobile sander and polisher, sustained eye injuries when a coemployee threw a chemical solution during an assault. The incident occurred after the claimant refused to participate in a false accusation against a foreman, leading to threats during working hours and the actual assault immediately after work, just outside the employer's premises. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the assault was work-connected and within the reasonable time and space limits of employment, thus finding the resultant disability compensable. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, challenging the applicability of the proximity rule and the determination that the incident occurred in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, relying on the 'continued altercation rule' which allows recovery for work-connected quarrels extending beyond employment limits, and emphasized that an employee remains in the course of employment until a suitable opportunity to leave the workplace is provided.

Workers' CompensationAssaultWork-Connected InjuryEmployment ScopeContinued Altercation RulePremises LiabilityCoemployee MisconductDisability BenefitsAppealJudicial Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 14,616 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