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

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Moog, Inc.

Claimant was terminated from employment due to excessive absenteeism. He subsequently filed a complaint alleging discriminatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241, asserting he was fired for attempting to file a disability benefits claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the termination was for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, which was affirmed on appeal. The court emphasized that the burden of proving retaliation rests with the claimant, requiring a causal nexus between protected activity and detrimental employer conduct, which was not established in this case, and that a termination due to lengthy absence, absent retaliatory intent, does not constitute discrimination.

DiscriminationRetaliationExcessive AbsenteeismDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofCausal NexusJob TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ761271 (SJO 0070447)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

Dorothy Thompson vs. GENERAL MOTORS, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has declared Dorothy Thompson a vexatious litigant. This declaration follows a notice issued on September 7, 2010, to which no response was received. As a result, any future filings by Ms. Thompson in propria persona will be considered "conditionally filed." Such filings will only be deemed properly filed after a judge or the Board determines they do not violate Rule 10782(a).

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPropria PersonaRule 10782(a)Conditionally FiledPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims Management ServicesNotice of IntentionPresiding Workers' Compensation Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Latanya Billings v. Dime Savings Bank

Claimant, a quality control analyst, was terminated by her employer after sustaining a non-work-related back injury and collecting disability benefits. She alleged that her termination was in retaliation for filing a disability claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the claimant in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241 by terminating her due to her disability claim. The employer appealed, arguing that the termination was an inadvertent misinterpretation of its job guarantee policy. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inference of intentional, retaliatory conduct were supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted for further development on the issue of damages.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Workers' Compensation Law § 241Job Guarantee Policy ViolationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate AffirmationCredibility Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. Revere Copper Products

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 2002 and received workers' compensation benefits. After it was discovered she was working as a waitress, a question arose regarding a potential violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for misrepresentation. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no violation, though benefits were adjusted due to her current employment. The employer appealed, contending the claimant failed to disclose her employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that no violation occurred, as the claimant had informed the employer of her intent to seek work and readily disclosed her waitress job when asked. The court also deemed the employer's request to cross-examine medical professionals untimely.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudDisabilityBack InjuryEmployment DisclosureAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceUntimely RequestReduced Earnings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moran v. Vaccaro

Plaintiffs, including Local 1-2 of the Utility Workers’ Union of America and Thomas Moran et al., filed a complaint against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and seven of its management employees. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Clean Air Act related to asbestos handling at Con Edison’s 74th Street Generating Station and included two state law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were based on wholly past violations and that plaintiffs failed to comply with the Act's 60-day prior notice requirement. Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional defects by alleging intermittent violations and adding more plaintiffs. The court granted the motion to dismiss the original complaint, finding it defective due to allegations of only past violations and a failure to provide proper written notice. Leave to file the amended complaint was denied because it would be barred by an existing EPA suit against Con Edison for similar violations and the notice issue remained unresolved. The dismissal of the federal claim also resulted in the dismissal of the state law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction.

Clean Air ActCitizen SuitAsbestosEnvironmental LawJurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissNotice RequirementPast ViolationsOngoing Violations
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garguiolo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The Court of Claims initially granted the claimants' application for permission to file a late notice of claim without providing reasons. This decision was subsequently reversed by the appellate court. The reversal was predicated on the statutory factors outlined in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), which include a six-month unexplained delay in filing and a lack of evidence that the State or Thruway Authority had prior notice of the claim's essential facts or an opportunity to investigate. The appellate court further noted that the State would suffer prejudice due to the changing nature of the construction site where the injury occurred. Additionally, the claimant's allegations regarding a violation of the New York State Labor Law were deemed bare, and a partial alternate remedy was available through workers’ compensation.

Late Notice of ClaimCourt of Claims Act Section 10(6)Appellate ReversalMotion DeniedPrejudiceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation RemedyNew York State Labor LawFailure to State ReasonsTimeliness of Claim
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 12,559 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