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. 533132
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick Mitchell

Claimant Frederick Mitchell, a certified welder, sustained work-related injuries in two incidents in 2003 and 2004, leading to established workers' compensation claims. Initially found to be permanently partially disabled, Mitchell sought reclassification as permanently totally disabled. However, he was later disqualified from receiving benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to misrepresentations about his condition, based on surveillance video evidence. Years later, Mitchell applied to the Workers' Compensation Board to rehear or reopen his claims, citing newly discovered evidence and the interest of justice. The Board denied his application, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityMisrepresentation of ConditionSurveillance Video EvidenceRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimsAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. CA 11-00541
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

BYRD, JOSEPH v. RONEKER, JR., FREDERICK E.

The plaintiff, Joseph Byrd, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at the home of defendant Frederick E. Roneker, Jr. Byrd initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Roneker's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that Roneker, as a homeowner who did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, was exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Roneker exercised supervisory control or had notice of any dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNew York LawNegligencePremises LiabilityTree Trimming
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frederick v. Barnhart

Amy Frederick sought Social Security disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits, which were denied due to her alcoholism being a material contributing factor to her disability. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found her disabled but concluded she was ineligible due to alcoholism. Seeking judicial review, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision, citing legal errors in the ALJ's assessment. The court found the ALJ failed to determine which mental impairments would persist independently of alcohol abuse and improperly weighed treating physician opinions. The decision highlighted substantial evidence that Frederick's disabling mental impairments existed regardless of her alcohol use, leading to a remand for the calculation and payment of benefits.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsAlcoholism MaterialityMental ImpairmentBipolar DisorderPost Traumatic Stress DisorderTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemand for BenefitsMedical Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frederick v. New York

Plaintiff Joel W. Frederick sued John Burrows and Ron Germain alleging discriminatory treatment due to perceived disability, unlawful retaliation, First Amendment retaliation, abuse of process, and assault. The complaint details a workplace altercation, a domestic incident, subsequent mental health evaluations, and alleged retaliatory actions by Rochester Psychiatric Center (RPC) and its employees. Defendants moved to partially dismiss the amended complaint. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the assault claim against Germain without prejudice and Count V (abuse of process) with prejudice. Counts III (Labor Law § 740), IV (First Amendment retaliation), and VI (false arrest/false imprisonment) were dismissed against Burrows without prejudice, with leave to replead.

Disability DiscriminationWorkplace RetaliationFirst Amendment RightsSection 1983 ClaimNew York Labor LawSupplemental JurisdictionAbuse of ProcessFalse ArrestMental Health EvaluationPublic Employee Speech
References
37
Case No. ADJ3623428 (MON 0334798) ADJ1196230 (MON 0334799)
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

FREDERICK DOMINGUE vs. CEDAR SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant Cedar Sinai Medical Center sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) for $99,000, settling applicant Frederick Domingue's claims for various injuries, including psyche, respiratory, and cancer. Defendant argued CMS approval was a condition precedent, applicant failed to disclose terminal brain cancer, and the WCJ abused discretion due to applicant's death post-execution but pre-approval. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence CMS approval was required given the C&R's terms and CMS guidelines, and that the WCAB has discretion to approve a C&R even after an applicant's death. Furthermore, the Board found no sufficient evidence of nondisclosure of a separate terminal brain cancer condition.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMS approvalcondition precedentindustrial injurypsycherespiratory systemspine
References
13
Case No. ADJ266602 ( 0256585)
Regular
Mar 26, 2010

DELENA FREDERICK vs. ADP and CNA INSURANCE COMPANY/ RSK CO.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Delena Frederick concerning a workers' compensation claim against ADP and CNA INSURANCE COMPANY/ RSK CO. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The Board has adopted the Judge's report and issued an Order Denying Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationADJ266602ADPCNA Insurance CompanyRSK Co.Delena FrederickJames C. Cuneo
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byrd v. Roneker

Plaintiff, an independent contractor, sued Frederick E. Roneker, Jr., for personal injuries sustained in a fall from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at Roneker's home. The complaint alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Roneker appealed two orders: one denying his motion for summary judgment and another concerning the record on appeal. The appellate court modified the order in appeal No. 2, allowing the plaintiff's memorandum of law only for content preservation. For appeal No. 1, the court reversed, finding Roneker was exempt from Labor Law liability as he did not direct or control the work, nor was the property used for purely commercial purposes. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim, as Roneker lacked supervisory control and notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallHomeowner ExemptionLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceDirection and ControlAppellate ReviewRecord on AppealTree Trimming
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Environmental Workers C.W.A. Local 1186 v. Buffalo Sewer Authority

Petitioners Daniel Lewandowski, Frederick Napierala, and Matthew Raniero challenged the Buffalo Sewer Authority's elimination of their truck driver positions. The Supreme Court dismissed their petition, and this judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. Petitioners conceded that the Authority's actions were driven by legitimate economic concerns. The record presented no evidence of bad faith as a motivating factor for the eliminations. All other arguments raised on appeal were considered and found to be without merit.

Employment disputePublic sectorMunicipal authorityTruck driver positionsEconomic concernsBad faithArticle 78 proceedingAffirmationSupreme CourtNew York
References
2
Case No. SRO 0067126
Regular
Jan 28, 2008

PATRICK LEAHY vs. FREDERICK MEISWINKEL, INC., MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION AND FIRE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maryland Casualty Company's (Maryland) petition for reconsideration, upholding an arbitrator's order requiring Maryland to reimburse CIGA for workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured employee. The Board found Maryland waived its objections regarding joinder and the date of injury by entering into a stipulation with CIGA. Furthermore, Maryland's argument for a summary of evidence was dismissed as no testimony was presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFrederick MeiswinkelInc.Maryland Casualty CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCalifornia Compensation and Fire CompanyCIGAcovered claimsreimbursementcontribution
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05734; CV-24-1563
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

Matter of Babcock v. Village of Walton

Frederick Babcock, a police officer, sought disability benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c after being diagnosed with PTSD stemming from a fatal shooting incident in October 2021. His application was denied by the Village of Walton as untimely, despite an arbitrator recommending otherwise. Babcock challenged this denial in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding the Village's determination not improper. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that Supreme Court erred in not transferring the proceeding and, on the merits, determined that the Village's denial was not supported by substantial evidence, concluding that Babcock demonstrated good cause for a minor delay in his application. The judgment was reversed, the determination annulled, the petition granted, and the matter remitted.

PTSDDisability BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cPolice OfficerTimeliness of ApplicationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR article 78Administrative Determination ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Division
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 49 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