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. 01 CY 0301
Regular Panel Decision

Barillaro v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Luigi Barillaro appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him disability benefits for the period from March 11, 1994, through August 26, 1998. The District Court, presided over by Judge Dearie, found that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) conclusion that Barillaro could perform sedentary work was not supported by substantial evidence. The court identified errors in the ALJ's assessment, including the mischaracterization of a medical expert's testimony regarding Barillaro's eligibility under Appendix 1 of the regulations and the misapplication of Medical-Vocational Guidelines concerning his work experience and literacy. The court concluded that the ALJ erred by not affording enough weight to the treating physician's opinion, which was corroborated by other medical evidence. Consequently, the court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case for calculation of benefits, deeming further record development unnecessary.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSedentary WorkCoronary Artery DiseaseAdministrative Law JudgeMedical-Vocational GuidelinesResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleAngiogramDiabetic Macular Edema
References
28
Case No. Docket No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Rubet v. Commissioner of Social Security

Maria Rubet, claiming disability due to a nervous condition since October 1993, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Following a remand and a subsequent hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again found Rubet not disabled, a determination adopted by the Commissioner. Rubet failed to respond to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and a court order. The Court, after reviewing the record and adopting the Commissioner's analysis, found substantial evidence, including medical evaluations, to support the ALJ's finding that Rubet was not disabled. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social SecuritySSI BenefitsDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentAppealsJudicial ReviewCommissioner Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiBlasi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Frank DiBlasi sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits, citing disability due to depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, and limb numbness. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. DiBlasi appealed, arguing the Appeals Council failed to consider new material evidence (Dr. Rinzler's assessment), erred by not remanding for clarification of a prior medical opinion, and ignored a psychiatrist's letter. The court found the new evidence cumulative and not material, and that earlier records consistently reflected DiBlasi's difficulties. Ultimately, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that DiBlasi could perform simple, routine, unskilled tasks with minimal stress and contact, and that such jobs exist in the national economy. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security BenefitsDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentDepressionDiabetesGlobal Assessment of Functioning
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Kenneth Owen Browne sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Browne alleged disability since December 2007 due to conditions like degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found Browne not disabled, concluding he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court also addressed and rejected Browne's arguments regarding the ALJ's application of the treating physician rule, and alleged failures to consider his obesity and medication side effects.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewResidual functional capacityTreating physician ruleSubstantial evidenceAdministrative Law JudgeMedical evidenceObesityMedication side effects
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Tammy Rice sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The District Court considered the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff had severe impairments of mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and mild degenerative joint disease of the knees but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions, concluding she was not disabled. The Court found the Commissioner's decision supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(c)Lumbar Spine
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutter v. Perales

The plaintiff, a home relief recipient, received a lump-sum Social Security settlement, leading to the discontinuation of her public assistance and a period of ineligibility under a Commissioner's regulation (18 NYCRR 352.29 [h]). She challenged the regulation's validity, arguing the Commissioner lacked rule-making authority for Home Relief recipients since the program is not federally funded and State amendatory legislation did not explicitly require such a rule. The court disagreed, holding that the 1981 amendatory legislation, read in its entirety and with legislative history, provided sufficient implicit authority for the Commissioner to enact the regulation. The court found that the legislative intent was to ensure consistency between the ADC and Home Relief programs to prevent shifting caseloads, despite the lack of direct federal mandate for Home Relief. The order of the lower court was modified and affirmed, with two judges dissenting.

Lump Sum IncomeHome ReliefPublic Assistance EligibilityRegulatory AuthoritySocial Services Law InterpretationLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAFDC Program
References
7
Case No. 99-CV-149
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1999

Searcy v. Commissioner of Social Security

This federal court decision addresses an appeal by a plaintiff challenging the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits, stemming from a 1964 back injury. The District Court, adopting a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, granted the Commissioner of Social Security's motion to remand the case for further proceedings. This remand is based on new evidence regarding an expanded class in Dixon v. Heckler, which may now include the plaintiff, requiring reconsideration of his benefits claim. Additionally, the plaintiff's "Sharpe" motion, seeking to compel a hearing, was denied, as the remand itself provides substantial relief for his claims.

Disability benefitsSocial SecurityRemandClass actionAdministrative lawFederal courtReport-RecommendationJudicial reviewMagistrate JudgeDistrict Judge
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2007

Bolden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Darrell Bolden sought disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming a continuous disability since 1992. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found him disabled from September 2003 but denied benefits for the June 2000 to September 2003 period. Bolden challenged this decision in federal court, while the Commissioner of Social Security sought to affirm it. The court, presided over by District Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied both parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further evidentiary proceedings, citing the ALJ's failure to adequately explain the weight given to treating physicians' opinions and to fully analyze the implications of Bolden's medication non-compliance.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSeizure DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)ALJ Decision ReviewResidual Functional CapacityMedical Non-ComplianceCase RemandFederal District CourtVietnam War Veteran
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Astrue

Thomas Johnson, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Commissioner of Social Security after his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was denied. The District Court, presided over by Judge Telesca, reviewed the ALJ's decision, which found Johnson not disabled despite acknowledging his 'severe' conditions. The court determined that the ALJ improperly evaluated Johnson's schizophrenia, finding it to be a 'listed impairment' under SSA regulations, fulfilling criteria for marked difficulties in social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace. The court concluded that Johnson's schizophrenia was independently disabling, despite his substance abuse and his own testimony downplaying his mental health issues, and thus reversed the Commissioner's decision, granting judgment to Johnson and remanding the case for calculation of benefits.

SchizophreniaDisability BenefitsSocial Security ActMental ImpairmentResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewAppeals CouncilDIBSSIParanoid Schizophrenia
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,728 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