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

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local Union 1566, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. appealed an order dated December 18, 1985, from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted the petitioner union's application to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from the employer's disability payment procedure requiring employees to submit claims for statutory benefits to qualify for sick-leave payments, a policy the union grieved. The arbitration board denied the grievance, interpreting the collective bargaining agreement to support the employer's procedure. However, the Supreme Court vacated the award, finding the board exceeded its authority by modifying the contract. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the arbitration board indeed exceeded its expressly limited powers by effectively rewriting the collective bargaining agreement, which contained no provision requiring employees to submit statutory disability claims for sick-leave benefits.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSick Leave BenefitsDisability Benefits LawVacatur of Arbitration AwardArbitrator AuthorityContract InterpretationNew York LawAppellate ProcedureEmployer Policy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. ADJ9896370
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

GUILLERMO RESTREPO vs. SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ALPHA FUND

The applicant sought compensation for an industrial injury sustained in a car accident while commuting to work, arguing it fell under exceptions to the going and coming rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of the claim. The WCAB found the applicant's testimony regarding the necessity of using his personal vehicle for work-related tasks lacked credibility. Crucially, the evidence did not establish that the employer expressly or impliedly required the applicant to use his vehicle or that such use was a custom and practice relied upon by the employer.

Going and Coming RuleIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJDirector of Environmental ServicesMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment ContractJob Duties
References
12
Case No. ADJ9815883 ADJ9815873
Regular
Apr 03, 2017

OCTAVIO AVILEZ vs. ANDRE LANDSCAPE SERVICE, INC., STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the applicant's alleged industrial injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine. An agreed medical evaluator's reports present conflicting opinions regarding causation and permanent disability from the incidents on August 12, 2014, and January 9, 2015. The Board is deferring the spine injury issue pending further clarification from the evaluator on whether these incidents caused any disability or required medical treatment. The Board also expressly found no industrial injury to the upper and lower extremities and deferred all other body parts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineUpper ExtremitiesLower ExtremitiesDeferred Issue
References
1
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Aug 03, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

This case concerns applicant Balgovind Sharma's claim for workers' compensation penalties against Lam Research Corp. and Matrix San Jose for alleged unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment. Following a stipulation on August 4, 2009, which agreed to authorize specific treatments, applicant sought penalties for sixteen prior, unaddressed treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that applicant did not "expressly exclude" penalty claims from the stipulation as required by Labor Code section 5814(c). Consequently, all accrued penalty claims, including those not specifically mentioned in the stipulation, were conclusively presumed resolved by the stipulation.

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)
References
0
Case No. ADJ9001768
Regular
Apr 04, 2019

ERNESTO LANGARICA vs. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE

This case concerns defendant Penske Truck Leasing's attempt to claim a credit against future workers' compensation benefits owed to applicant Ernesto Langarica. The applicant settled a civil lawsuit arising from an industrial injury, and the defendant had filed a lien in that civil case. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior finding and returned the case for further proceedings, holding that the settlement of the defendant's lien in the civil case did not automatically waive their right to claim a credit. The WCAB emphasized that the release language did not expressly waive the credit claim, and applicant's understanding of the settlement did not create a "warranted belief" of such a waiver. Further hearings are required to determine negligence and the final credit amount.

Third-party recoveryLien settlementCredit rightsLabor Code sections 3858 and 3861Joint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations and Request for AwardRelease of claimsWCJ Opinion on DecisionEmployer negligence
References
19
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,191 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