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

People v. Hinkein

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Columbia County, rendered on February 15, 2001, convicting her of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child following a guilty plea. The defendant argued that the County Court erred in accepting her plea without first conducting a competency examination under CPL 730.20, given her history of manic depression. However, the Appellate Division found that the County Court did not abuse its discretion, citing correspondence from social workers indicating no mental status abnormalities and the defendant's capable responses during the plea colloquy. The appellate court also determined that the imposed sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, considering the defendant's criminal history and her use of a 12-year-old child as a drug courier. Consequently, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

Criminal sale of controlled substanceEndangering welfare of childGuilty pleaCompetency issueCPL 730.20Second felony offenderConcurrent sentenceManic depressionMental health assessmentAppellate review
References
13
Case No. VNO 0470712
Regular
Jul 06, 2007

CATHERINE HOLDREN vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant's February 22, 2005 request for vocational rehabilitation was her initial request, made within one year of the February 1, 2005 permanent disability award. Therefore, the statute of limitations did not bar her claim, and she is entitled to vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance from February 22, 2005, not January 14, 2005. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to deny the employer's appeal and ordered the employer to withhold 20% of the applicant's VRMA for attorney's fees.

Vocational RehabilitationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5405.5Labor Code 5410Rehabilitation UnitVRMAPermanent DisabilityInitial RequestStipulationsWCJ
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falvey v. John F. Curry, Inc.

The claimant's decedent disappeared in February 1970. Five years later, in 1975, the Surrogate's Court of Kings County issued temporary letters of administration, presuming the date of death as February 11, 1970. The claimant then filed for death benefits. The employer and carrier appealed the award of benefits, contending there was no substantial evidence linking the death to employment and that the claim was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law section 28. The court found substantial evidence to support the finding that the death occurred in the course of employment. Additionally, the court ruled that under EPTL 2-1.7, the presumed date of death for an unexplained absence is five years after the disappearance, making the actual presumed death date February 11, 1975. Consequently, the claim filed on November 20, 1975, was deemed timely, and the board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumed DeathUnexplained AbsenceTime BarStatute of LimitationsEPTLCourse of Employment
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ9273348
Regular
Mar 24, 2015

STEVEN TOUGAS vs. SME STEEL CONTRACTORS, THE HARTFORD, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in the case of Steven Tougas, affirming the administrative law judge's findings. The Board rejected the argument that the cumulative trauma injury ended on October 20, 2012, as there was no medical evidence supporting permanent restrictions on that date. Instead, medical treatment records dated before the applicant's last day of work on February 15, 2013, were considered. Consequently, the date of injury was properly established as February 15, 2013, and the applicant was not barred from compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationdeniedWCJ reportcumulative traumapermanent modified dutiesdeposition testimonysubstantial evidencemedical treatment recordslast day of work
References
1
Case No. ADJ4234884 (LAO 0804931) ADJ1711973 (LAO 0804932) ADJ4412867 (LAO 0804933)
Regular
Dec 24, 2012

JESUS VALDEZ ALVAREZ vs. AIR LOUVERS/SASON PRODUCTS, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., administered by CHUBB & SON, MARCO MANUFACTURING, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC. administered by BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, Shandler & Associates, petitioning for reconsideration of a February 24, 2004 order approving a Compromise and Release. The lien claimant argues its attorneys' fees were unprotected and that applicant's counsel failed to pay them. However, the petition is dismissed as untimely because the lien claimant had actual notice of the settlement and order on February 14, 2004, making its October 5, 2012 filing nearly nine years later untimely. The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to consider petitions filed beyond the statutory 20-day period, and any disputes over fees should be pursued through contract remedies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantCompromise and ReleaseAttorneys' FeesUntimely PetitionActual NoticeWCJ ReportSupplemental PetitionEAMS
References
1
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05774 [120 AD3d 552]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2014

Karanikolas v. Elias Taverna, LLC

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Nikolaos Karanikolas, who fell from a ladder while performing construction work in a building owned by 20 John Street, LLC and leased by Elias Taverna, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Key modifications included denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, granting parts of the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on specific Industrial Code sections, and granting 20 John Street's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against Elias Taverna. Additionally, the court granted Elias Taverna's cross-motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against it, as well as claims for common-law indemnification and contribution.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial CodePremises Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Alamin v. Down Town Taxi, Inc.

Claimant, a taxi driver, sustained neck and back injuries in a February 2008 work-related motor vehicle accident. His workers' compensation claim was established. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits from February 2008 to October 2009, finding a moderate causally related disability after November 2008. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later rescinded awards after November 20, 2008, ruling that no further causally related disability existed from that date. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The current court dismissed the appeals from the WCLJ's January 2013 decision and the Board's January 2014 decision due to procedural irregularities (direct appeal from WCLJ and untimely filing of notice of appeal). The court affirmed the Board’s March 2014 decision denying reconsideration, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, as the claimant failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a material change in condition.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureDismissal of AppealReconsideration DenialCausally Related DisabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentIndependent Medical ExaminationProcedural BarAbuse of DiscretionTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1979

Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The claimant-appellant's motion dated February 14, 1979, was denied without costs. Additionally, the court, on its own motion, dismissed the appeal from the board's decision filed September 29, 1978. The dismissal was based on the determination being nonfinal and therefore not appealable at this time. The court noted that dismissing the appeal should expedite the examination of the claimant by impartial specialists, which had been delayed due to the appeal's pendency. The claimant retains the right to seek review of any adverse rulings from the September 29, 1978 decision upon an appeal from the board's final decision in the case.

Motion PracticeAppeal DismissalNon-Final OrderExpedited ExaminationImpartial Specialists
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Russo v. M & M Transportation

The claimant, employed by M & M Transportation, sustained back and knee injuries in 1976. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging various preexisting conditions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). However, the carrier failed to produce medical proof to support its claim of preexisting conditions, even after being directed to do so by the Hearing Officer. Consequently, the Hearing Officer discharged the Special Fund, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to provide clarifying medical proof and finding the Board's denial of reconsideration was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court emphasized that the existence of a previous disability must be established before addressing the employer's knowledge of such a condition.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionMedical EvidenceCarrier ObligationsBoard DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,443 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