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. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macri v. Central Service Center

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from a portion of an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division order had previously affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board determination. This determination specifically denied an application for reconsideration and/or a full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal from this particular portion of the order was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the legal principle that this part of the order does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding under the Constitution. All other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Appellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationMotion to AppealFinality of OrderConstitutional LawBoard Review DenialReconsideration DenialLegal Procedure
References
0
Case No. Appellate Division Docket No. 2022-000000
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2023

Matter of Howard v. Facilities Maintenance Corporation

Shamira Bell appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision regarding reimbursement for lost wage payments from the Special Disability Fund. The WCB had determined that the employer's application for reimbursement was untimely, filed more than two years after the final decision that the case was subject to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, rejecting Bell's argument that the two-year period for filing a claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) should commence only after a final administrative award determined the total reimbursement amount. The court clarified that the two-year period begins upon the Board's final determination that the case falls under the specified section of the Workers' Compensation Law. In this instance, the Board's August 2019 decision established this final determination, rendering the employer's July 2022 reimbursement application untimely.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimTimeliness of ApplicationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSection 15 (8) (d)Final DeterminationLost Wage PaymentsStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

The petitioner, a physician, sought a recalculation of his retirement benefits, specifically challenging the Comptroller's decision to exclude compensation from 1996 to 1999. The Comptroller had determined that the petitioner was an independent contractor during this period, making his earnings ineligible for inclusion in his final average salary. The court reviewed this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Finding substantial evidence to support the Comptroller's findings, which included the county issuing 1099 tax forms, requiring specific contracts, and the absence of employee benefits, the court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.

retirement benefitsindependent contractorfinal average salaryComptroller determinationCPLR article 78 proceedingOrleans County1099 tax formsW-2 wage statementsemployer-employee relationshippension recalculation
References
3
Case No. ADJ4265715
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

ARNIE K. RAGLAND vs. METROPOLITAN PROVISION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed. The applicant's entitlement to VRMA from a specific date forward was established by a Rehabilitation Unit Determination that became final before the repeal. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination. Therefore, the applicant's right to VRMA from the date of the final Determination vested before the statute's repeal.

VRMAVocational RehabilitationVested RightLabor Code 139.5RepealRehabilitation UnitDeterminationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ5756567
Regular
May 20, 2015

JOSEPH BRAMBLE vs. STATE FARM, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves Joseph Bramble appealing a non-final order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The judge's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination of the case. The WCAB noted that reconsideration of the Summary Rating Determination should be filed with the Administrative Director, not the WCAB.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsSummary Rating DeterminationAdministrative Director
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel

The County of Orange challenged environmental determinations by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel regarding the construction of a public water supply facility and pipeline. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, annulled the determinations, and remitted the matter for a supplemental environmental impact statement. The appellate court modified the judgment, directing the preparation of an amended final environmental impact statement instead of a supplemental one, specifically requiring analysis of wetlands, sewage, wastewater discharge, a phase 1-B archaeological study, and growth-inducing effects. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying the Village's motion to renew opposition to the petition, concluding that while deficiencies existed in the initial environmental review, the lead agency was not required to consider additional alternatives beyond those already identified. The case clarifies that an amended FEIS is appropriate for initial deficiencies, not an SEIS.

Environmental ReviewSEQRA ComplianceCPLR Article 78Wetlands ImpactWastewater DischargeArchaeological StudyGrowth-Inducing EffectsEnvironmental Impact StatementAmended FEISJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

East End Property Co. 1 v. Kessel

The case involves a hybrid proceeding (CPLR article 78) and a taxpayer action (State Finance Law § 123-b) challenging two determinations by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) dated December 15, 2005. These determinations adopted a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings statement and authorized LIPA to enter into a power purchase agreement with Caithness Long Island, LLC, for a 350-megawatt power plant in Brookhaven. The petitioners-plaintiffs appealed from an order and judgment which denied their amended petition, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the sixth and seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while some civic associations had standing for certain claims, none had standing for the sixth cause of action (violations of Public Authorities Law § 1020-f) and the individual appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient injury. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, concluding that LIPA satisfied its SEQRA obligations, including taking a "hard look" at environmental impacts and adequately analyzing alternatives. The court further ruled that LIPA's segmentation of the Iroquois Pipeline Extension environmental review was not improper due to federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and that no supplemental EIS was required. Finally, the court found the taxpayer action allegations insufficient to establish an illegal use of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingTaxpayer ActionHybrid ProceedingPower Purchase AgreementLong Island Power AuthorityFederal PreemptionSegmentationAdministrative Law
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 10,869 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