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 Brown v. Verizon New York, Inc.

This case involves appeals from six Workers’ Compensation Board decisions concerning an employer’s right to full reimbursement for benefits paid. The central issue revolves around whether an employer’s right to recover moneys paid pursuant to an employee benefit plan from a later workers’ compensation schedule award is governed by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) or (c). The court applied the principles of collateral estoppel and stare decisis, asserting that this issue had been previously decided in Staruch v New York Tel. Co. The court affirmed the prior decisions, declining to re-examine the established rules given the numerous cases processed in conformity with the Staruch precedents. Additionally, the court deferred addressing the preemption issue under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c), stating it was not squarely presented. The court also specifically disagreed with the employer's argument that Richard D'Arpe's case was factually distinguishable due to the timing of plan filing.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementCollateral EstoppelStare DecisisEmployee Benefit PlanSchedule AwardAppellate ReviewERISA PreemptionNew York LawWorkers' Compensation Law § 25(4)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2015

Matter of Newbill v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation crew chief, injured his right ankle and foot at work and was awarded disability benefits. His self-insured employer paid his full weekly wages during a period of disability and timely sought reimbursement for these advanced payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the employer's reimbursement request against a 20% schedule loss of use award for the right foot. The Board affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed, arguing that reimbursement should not cover periods where no compensation awards were initially made. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that an employer is entitled to full reimbursement from a schedule loss of use award for advanced wages paid during disability, as schedule awards are not allocable to specific periods of lost work.

Schedule Loss of UseReimbursementAdvanced Wage PaymentsDisability BenefitsEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityTimely Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1997

Claim of Whitcomb v. Xerox Corp.

In July 1993, a claimant sustained a compensable neck and back injury during employment and subsequently received workers’ compensation benefits. She initiated and settled a third-party action for $50,000, with the employer’s carrier consenting while explicitly reserving its right to seek reimbursement for payments exceeding the settlement amount. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge classified her as permanently partially disabled and credited the net third-party recovery against her continuing workers’ compensation award. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision, ruling that the carrier had adequately preserved its offset rights, a finding affirmed on appeal based on substantial evidence from the carrier’s written consent.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityCarrier ConsentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFuture Awards
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06487 [153 AD3d 1453]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2017

Matter of Collins v. Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept.

Claimant Kevin P. Collins, a deputy sheriff, sustained a work-related right knee injury in November 2011, leading to an established workers' compensation claim and disability benefits. The self-insured employer paid full weekly wages during the disability period (November 29, 2011, to May 30, 2012) and filed a timely reimbursement request. The parties stipulated that claimant had a 21% schedule loss of use of his right leg and that the employer could "take credit for all prior payments." Claimant sought a hearing to determine if the employer was entitled to full reimbursement from the schedule award or if a late payment penalty should be imposed for underpayment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed the employer's right to full reimbursement, finding the stipulation's language unambiguous and consistent with Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's interpretation of the stipulation was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer had not waived its right to reimbursement.

ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsSchedule Loss of UseStipulationEmployer CreditDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationTimely Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Burke v. Verizon Services Group

The claimant suffered a work injury in May 2009 and received workers' compensation benefits from the carrier and full wages from the employer. The employer sought reimbursement for wages paid, contingent on a future schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge affirmed the employer's right to contingent reimbursement and awarded benefits for a specific period. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the employer's right to future contingent reimbursement but denied counsel fees, citing a lack of current funds. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision regarding the employer's right to contingent reimbursement but reversed the denial of counsel fees, holding that a lien for counsel fees can attach to future awards, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of counsel fees.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementAdvance PaymentsSchedule Loss of UseCounsel FeesLienAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWages in Lieu of CompensationDisability Benefits
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Office of Mental Health v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Alphonso Purse Jr. was terminated by his employer (petitioner) in March 1992 after being absent from work due to alcohol rehabilitation and osteoarthritis. He subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), alleging discriminatory practice based on his status as a recovering alcoholic. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found discrimination and awarded Purse $5,000 for emotional distress but denied back pay. SDHR later reversed the ALJ's decision on back pay, awarding Purse an additional $385,750. The petitioner (employer) then challenged SDHR's determination in court. The court upheld the finding of unlawful discriminatory practice and the award for emotional distress, but annulled the award of back pay, concluding that Purse's economic losses were due to his disability, not discrimination, as he was receiving disability benefits concurrently with his removal from the payroll.

Disability DiscriminationAlcohol Abuse RehabilitationEmployment TerminationExecutive LawState Division of Human RightsBack Pay AwardEmotional Distress DamagesCollective Bargaining AgreementMedical DocumentationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a proceeding to review a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The Board initially found no sex-based discrimination against female office workers by an employer. However, it also found that the employer discriminated against the complainant for opposing practices she believed were discriminatory, leading to her suspension and termination. The court deemed the Board's decision inconsistent because the Board concurrently concluded the employer did not engage in practices forbidden by the Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Board for clarification of its findings and decision.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationAdministrative ReviewInconsistent FindingsAnnulmentRemittalExecutive Law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,977 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