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
May 22, 1992

Fedorczak v. Dolce

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that annulled determinations by the City of White Plains Commissioner of Public Safety regarding firefighter benefits. The petitioners, firefighters injured in the line of duty, were initially denied benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a, with their time lost allocated to sick leave. The Supreme Court found that prior Workers' Compensation Board awards had already established that the injuries occurred in the performance of their duties, thus entitling them to benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, drawing parallels between General Municipal Law § 207-a and § 207-c, and deeming the respondents' initial determinations arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the judgment directed the City of White Plains to provide the petitioners with the appropriate benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a.

FirefightersGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aWorkers' Compensation BoardSick LeaveInjury in Line of DutyCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionWestchester CountyMunicipal EmployeesPublic Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Falkouski v. City of Rensselaer Fire Department

Decedent, who held a paid position as an assistant fire chief and was also a volunteer firefighter, died from a ruptured cerebral aneurysm while at a fire. His surviving spouse filed claims under both the Workers’ Compensation Law and the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. Initially, a workers' compensation law judge found the death causally related to volunteer duties, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, determining that the decedent was acting in his paid capacity as an assistant fire chief, thus falling under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence that at the time of death, the decedent was engaged as a paid employee due to his duties, pay, and supervisory role, which were beyond those of a volunteer firefighter.

Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation LawDeath benefitsCerebral aneurysmAssistant fire chiefEmployee vs. Volunteer statusSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewSupervisory roleCausal relationship
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2005

Weinstein v. Somers Fire District

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter and self-employed real estate agent, sustained a back injury in July 2001 while performing duties. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found he suffered a permanent partial disability and a 50% loss of earning capacity under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, awarding benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and its carrier appealed the decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence including a neurosurgeon's report indicating chronic low back pain, reduced ability to work, and a moderate permanent disability. The report noted that the claimant's duties as a real estate agent were limited, and his average work hours had significantly decreased.

Volunteer firefighterloss of earning capacitypermanent partial disabilityback injuryreal estate agentneurosurgeon reportsubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Boardappealbenefit law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Frey v. Town of Newstead

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded benefits to a volunteer firefighter, the claimant, for a causally related loss of earning capacity under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while on duty for the Town of Newstead. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a permanent partial disability with a 50% to 75% loss of earning capacity, which the Board affirmed. The employer, Town of Newstead, appealed, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, citing that the claimant's treating physician released her to 'regular duty' with only minor restrictions, and her earnings had increased in the same job since the accident. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit LawEarning Capacity AssessmentPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate Court ReversalRemittal to BoardWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical Opinion EvidenceEmployment RestrictionsWage Increase EffectLine of Duty Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Furch v. Bucci

A firefighter for the City of Binghamton sought supplemental wage benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a, claiming arteriosclerosis and acute myocardial infarction were job-related. After initial denials and an administrative hearing, the application was again denied. The Supreme Court partially dismissed his CPLR article 78 petition but transferred a substantial evidence question to this Court. This Court affirmed due process and the non-binding nature of a workers' compensation decision regarding arteriosclerosis. However, it ruled that respondents were bound by the workers' compensation finding that the myocardial infarction was causally related to employment. Consequently, the matter was remitted to determine the petitioner's entitlement to benefits for any period of disability solely attributable to the myocardial infarction.

Firefighter benefitsGeneral Municipal Law Section 207-aWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR Article 78Myocardial InfarctionArteriosclerosisCausal RelationDue ProcessAdministrative LawRes Judicata
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moynihan v. Moyers Corners Fire Department, Inc.

The claimant, an emergency technician with the Moyers Corners Fire Department, was injured in 1988. Initially, the State Insurance Fund paid benefits under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. Years later, after the case was reopened due to an exacerbation of her injury, the employer and carrier argued the claim was improperly established under VFBL, contending it fell under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the employer and carrier estopped by laches from raising the coverage issue. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support the VFBL establishment and that estoppel could not prevent assertion of an impermissible award, remitting the case for further proceedings.

Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit LawWorkers’ Compensation LawEstoppelLachesCoverage DisputeAmbulance ServicesLine of DutyPermanent Partial DisabilityStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2004

Claim of Pache v. Aviation Volunteer Fire Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board granted benefits to the widow of a fire chief who died of a heart attack, finding an implied contract of coverage under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 30 (2) between Aviation Volunteer Fire Company and the City of New York. The City appealed, contending there was no evidence of FDNY Commissioner approval for such a contract and insufficient proof of its formation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the City Charter provisions did not exclusively assign contracting authority to the Commissioner and that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an implied-in-fact contract, partly due to the City's failure to produce a knowledgeable employee. The court declined to consider a new argument regarding General City Law § 16-a.

Implied contractVolunteer Firefighters’ Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal liabilityFatal heart attackAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationCity CharterFire DepartmentContract formation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Machajewski v. Town of Cambria

Gerald A. Machajewski, a volunteer firefighter for the Town of Cambria, died of an acute coronary artery thrombosis after responding to a chaotic automobile accident. His widow filed for workers' compensation death benefits, which the Workers’ Compensation Board established using presumptions from Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law §§ 44 and 61. The Town and its carrier appealed, arguing the death was unrelated to his duties. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the evidence supported unusual strain and effort, and the Town failed to rebut the claimant's entitlement to benefits.

Volunteer firefighterWorkers' compensation death benefitsCoronary artery thrombosisUnusual strain and effortCausationPresumptionsAppellate reviewCardiac eventExertionRebuttal evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2006

Fortis Benefits v. Cantu

Vanessa Cantu suffered severe injuries in a car accident and sued multiple parties. Her medical insurer, Fortis Benefits, intervened, seeking subrogation for medical benefits paid under the policy. After Cantu settled with the defendants, Fortis pursued recovery from Cantu. Cantu argued that the equitable "made whole" doctrine barred Fortis's claim because her total losses exceeded the settlement amount plus the benefits Fortis paid. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Cantu. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "made whole" doctrine does not override an insurer's clear contractual subrogation rights. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Fortis's claims against Ford due to a pretrial agreement.

Insurance SubrogationMade Whole DoctrineContractual SubrogationEquitable SubrogationERISATexas LawInsurance Policy InterpretationPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSettlement Proceeds
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giello v. Providence Fire District

A volunteer firefighter was injured in 2000 and awarded permanent partial disability benefits under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 10. The employer alleged false representations by the claimant regarding her limitations and sought disqualification under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a is not applicable to benefits awarded under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the plain language of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a specifically restricts its penalties to benefits claimed under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15, thus not extending to Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law benefits.

Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation LawFraudulent ClaimsStatutory InterpretationCivil PenaltiesWage Replacement BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewLegislative IntentDisability Benefits
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,655 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