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

Ramaglia v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioners, including union representative Joseph Ramaglia, requested payroll records from a steel company under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) through the Department of Transportation (DOT). They sought to determine if the steel company, a contractor for overpass replacement on the Long Island Expressway, was violating prevailing wage laws. DOT denied the request, stating it neither possessed nor was required to collect these records, as the steel company was merely a materials supplier, not directly involved in public works construction. Petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel DOT to obtain and produce the records. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, agreeing that DOT had no obligation to the supplier's records. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the prevailing wage law does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods, even custom or shop-finished products, especially when such work is a normal part of manufacturing and not typically done on-site.

Freedom of Information LawFOIL RequestPublic Works ContractPrevailing Wage LawMaterials SupplierPayroll RecordsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03509 [195 AD3d 1133]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2021

Matter of Broach & Stulberg, LLP v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Petitioner, Broach & Stulberg, LLP, filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request with the New York State Department of Labor for records pertaining to various apprenticeship training programs. Respondent partially granted the request but denied access to specific categories of documents, stating they did not possess them. Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and the Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding the contested categories of documents, holding that records maintained by a private entity for regulatory compliance are not necessarily 'records held for an agency' under FOIL unless the agency actually possesses, controls, or uses them for its decision-making process. The court modified the judgment, dismissing the petition to that extent, and otherwise affirmed.

Freedom of Information LawPublic RecordsAgency ResponsibilityRegulatory OversightApprenticeship TrainingThird-Party RecordsStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionArticle 78 ProceedingGovernment Transparency
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2021

Matter of Suhr v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv.

Petitioner Daniel R. Suhr requested records from the New York State Department of Civil Service under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), specifically seeking employee names and home zip codes. Respondent partially denied the request, withholding home zip codes citing privacy exemptions. Suhr then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the Supreme Court partially granted his application, ordering the disclosure of the zip codes. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that home zip codes are functionally equivalent to an address for FOIL purposes. The court concluded that disclosing home zip codes, when paired with employee names, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(a) and 87(2)(b), outweighing the minimal public interest in such information.

FOILPublic Officers LawPrivacy ExemptionHome Zip CodesState EmployeesCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyData DisclosurePersonal Privacy
References
34
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. 2016-06-2313
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2017

McGee, Tyrone vl Embassy Suites Nashville

Tyrone McGee, an employee of Embassy Suites Nashville, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing after becoming severely ill from eating enchiladas provided by his employer in the break room. He sought medical and temporary disability benefits, alleging his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The court denied his requested relief, finding that while he became ill during work, he failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to causally connect his condition to his employment, particularly that his employment contributed more than 50% to his need for medical treatment. The court highlighted the necessity of corroborative expert testimony for medical causation and noted its limited jurisdiction regarding certain requested damages like pain and suffering or housing losses.

Food Poisoning ClaimGastroenteritis DiagnosisCausation in Workers' CompExpedited Hearing DenialMedical Proof RequirementBurden of Proof EmployeeArising Out of EmploymentCourse and Scope of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer's Duty to Provide Panel
References
4
Case No. 2021-06-1129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Swartsell, Timothy v. Nashville Tempered Glass Corp.

Timothy Swartsell sought additional medical benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained at work, requesting Dr. Jaron Sullivan as his authorized treating physician. The employer, Nashville Tempered Glass Corp., disputed compensability and Dr. Sullivan's authorization, arguing an intervening act of golfing broke the chain of causation. The Court found Mr. Swartsell's injury primarily work-related, rejecting the employer's compensability defense based on medical evidence. However, it denied the request for additional benefits and payment for past unauthorized treatment with Dr. Sullivan. This denial was due to Mr. Swartsell's failure to consult his employer before seeking outside medical care, thereby not satisfying his burden of proof for the requested relief.

Shoulder InjuryMedical BenefitsUnauthorized TreatmentCausationIntervening ActGolf InjuryRotator Cuff TearBiceps TendinopathyExpedited HearingDenial of Relief
References
7
Case No. 2018-06-1247
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Lindsay, Courtland v. Western Express

This expedited hearing order addresses Courtland Lindsay's request for temporary disability and medical benefits following an alleged work-related knee injury on June 18, 2018. Lindsay claimed the incident aggravated a pre-existing patella injury sustained during a non-work-related jogging accident. Western Express, the employer, opposed the request, presenting a medical opinion from neurosurgeon Dr. Joseph Wieck, who concluded that Lindsay's injuries stemmed from the prior jogging accident and not the work incident. The Court found that Lindsay failed to provide sufficient expert medical proof to establish a causal link between his injury and employment, as required by Tennessee law. Consequently, the request for benefits was denied, and the matter was set for a future status conference.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryPatella FractureTendon TearMedical CausationExpedited HearingBenefit DenialPre-existing ConditionJogging AccidentEmployment Injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,680 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