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. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

Claim of Cozzi v. American Stock Exchange

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 12, 2016, which denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The underlying claim involved an alleged injury from inhaling dust at the World Trade Center site, but a WCLJ found the claimant was not a participant in cleanup efforts, rendering the claim untimely. The Board upheld this determination on February 5, 2016. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial of reconsideration, noting that the merits of the underlying decision were not before them, and the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as no new evidence was presented.

Workers' CompensationAppealReconsiderationTimelinessWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsFiling RequirementsBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04939 [197 AD3d 1376]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of Hughes v. Mid Hudson Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Warren Hughes suffered a work-related right knee injury in December 2016. The Workers' Compensation Board found a 45% schedule loss of use (SLU) but applied apportionment, attributing 17.5% to a prior noncompensable injury from 1976 based on the 1996 Medical Guidelines, resulting in a 27.5% SLU for the 2016 injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's apportionment finding, ruling it was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted the absence of operative reports or objective medical documentation for the 1976 injury and concluded the Board improperly fashioned its own medical opinion. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further consistent proceedings.

ApportionmentSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidencePrior InjuryCausationKnee InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Medical GuidelinesAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, injured in 1986, initially established a right shoulder injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this but denied a causally related neck injury in 1996. After another application in 1998 alleging a worsened neck condition, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related neck injury and permanent partial disability, awarding benefits from February 5, 1998, which the Board affirmed. Separately, the Board also ruled the employer was entitled to credit schedule payments against disability payments made after February 5, 1998. The court affirmed both decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the deterioration of the neck injury post-1996 and that schedule awards are independent of actual disability periods, thus allowing the employer's credit.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule AwardDisability PaymentsNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryCausally Related InjuryReopening CaseMedical EvidenceMRI
References
7
Case No. ADJ8725582
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

FREDDY HENRIQUEZ vs. FRED LEEDS PROPERTIES, LIBERTY MUTUAL, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA/TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE

This case concerns a lien claim by Tri-County Medical Group for services rendered between May 1, 2013, and November 6, 2013. The lien was dismissed as untimely by the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to the statute of limitations. The WCJ correctly applied Labor Code section 4903.5(a), which mandates an 18-month filing deadline for services provided on or after July 1, 2013. Since the lien was filed on February 26, 2016, over 18 months after the last date of service, the Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration.

Labor Code 4903.5(a)lien claimstatute of limitationspetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJorder dismissing liendate of services18-month limitation periodongoing treatment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of McLaughlin v. Saga Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that initially ruled the claimant’s application for review was untimely. This Court had previously affirmed that decision but reconsiders the matter after a motion for leave to appeal. The claimant's application for Board review of a WCLJ decision was filed and served on January 6, 1994. The 30-day limitations period, normally expiring on February 5, 1994, was extended to February 7, 1994, due to the original date falling on a Saturday, as per General Construction Law § 25-a. The claimant mailed the application on February 7, 1994, which, under 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a) effective September 1, 1989, is sufficient for service, even though it was not filed with the Board until February 15, 1994. The Court concluded that the application was timely, reversed the Board’s decision, and remitted the matter for further administrative proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimelinessBoard ReviewLimitations PeriodMailing RuleFiling ProceduresRemittalWCLJ DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Funeral Directors Ass'n v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, including the Metropolitan Funeral Directors Association, John C. Sommese, Anthony J. Martino, Hess-Miller Funeral Home, Inc., and Simonson Funeral Home, Inc., initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), and Commissioner Jules Polonetsky. The plaintiffs challenged four recently amended DCA rules (5-162, 5-164, 5-165, 5-166) pertaining to the regulation of the funeral home industry. They contended that these rules were preempted by State law, exceeded the Commissioner's authority, lacked a legitimate government purpose, were unconstitutionally vague, and were arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these rules, arguing that their implementation would cause irreparable harm to their businesses. Defendants countered that the rules were consumer-protective, a rational exercise of authority, and consistent with State law, citing a February 1999 DCA investigation report titled "The High Cost of Dying." The court, presided over by Justice Richard F. Braun, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or a favorable balance of equities. The court also noted the plaintiffs' incomplete statement as required by CPLR 6001.

Funeral Home RegulationConsumer ProtectionDeclaratory JudgmentPreliminary InjunctionState PreemptionLocal OrdinancesAdministrative LawStatutory AuthorityUnconstitutionally VagueArbitrary and Capricious
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 2,349 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