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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Backus v. Wesley Health Care Center, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the carrier’s application for review of a February 8, 2002 decision, deeming it untimely as it was filed more than two years after the WCLJ’s initial decision. The carrier had argued that the average weekly wage was miscalculated due to a mistaken assumption about salary payment frequency. The Board also denied the carrier's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion given the carrier’s failure to provide an explanation for the significant delay and the absence of new evidence warranting a rehearing.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsApplication TimelinessAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionRehearing DenialReconsideration DenialSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation LawNew York Regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2009

Lopez v. 395 Brook Realty Corp.

A claimant sought workers' compensation benefits after an alleged injury while employed by 395 Brook Realty Corporation, owned by David Damaghi. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Brook Realty subsequently filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board nearly two months after the WCLJ's decision, exceeding the 30-day statutory limit. The Board denied the application as untimely, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found no abuse of discretion by the Board, noting that Brook Realty failed to provide any explanation for the delay.

workers' compensationappeal timelinessadministrative lawjudicial reviewemployer liabilityprocedural due processstatutory interpretationboard discretionNew Yorklabor law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. v. Webster

A New York corporation, previously certified as a woman-owned business enterprise, was denied recertification in 1992, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The court rejected claims of inadequate explanation and procedural irregularities, finding the Hearing Officer's rationale, adopted by the Executive Director, provided sufficient basis for judicial review, and the hearing procedures were within discretion. Substantial evidence supported the denial of recertification, as control over petitioner's daily operations, including critical decisions on bidding, marketing, sales, purchasing, hiring, and field supervision, was shared between the sole shareholder Jean Zelezniak, her husband, and another employee. This shared control, coupled with Zelezniak's lack of expertise and the company's formation structure, led to the conclusion that the business was family-owned and not independently controlled by Zelezniak as required by regulations for woman-owned business enterprise status. Consequently, the determination to deny recertification was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Woman-owned business enterpriseRecertification denialCPLR Article 78Administrative reviewBusiness controlShareholder controlFamily-owned businessProcedural due processJudicial reviewExecutive Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ9412921, ADJ9412992
Regular
Dec 18, 2018

NINETTE SANTILLAN vs. GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award regarding a lien claimant's photocopying services. The Board found the administrative law judge (WCJ) did not adequately address whether the defendant's explanations of review complied with statutory requirements for timely objections. Therefore, the Board rescinded the award and returned the matter for further proceedings to determine the validity of invoices, timely compliance with explanation of review procedures, and to address all outstanding issues. The Board emphasized that failure to lodge timely objections constitutes a waiver.

Explanation of Review (EOR)Lien ClaimantMedical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimLabor Code SectionsOtis v. City of Los AngelesCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10451.1Reasonable ValuePhotocopying ServicesWCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ9615494
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

CARLOS SOTO TORRES vs. THE CLIFF RESTAURANT, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an Amended Findings of Fact and Order because essential documentation regarding the timeliness of medical-legal billings and reviews was missing. Specifically, the record lacked proof of service for the provider's invoice, the defendant's initial Explanation of Review (EOR), and the subsequent second bill review. This prevented determination of whether the defendant timely objected to the bill and whether the provider timely requested a second review, necessitating further proceedings at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings of Fact and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEDr. Payam MoazzazZenith Insurance CompanyStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 4903.5Independent Bill Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,218 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