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. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Case No. 73 Civ. 1329, 73 Civ. 2141
Regular Panel Decision

Ward Foods, Inc. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO

The plaintiffs, Ward Foods, Inc. and Ward Baking Company, Inc., initiated two actions seeking a declaratory judgment that no valid arbitration agreement existed with the defendant, Local 50, under the National Labor Relations Act and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The defendant responded with a general denial and petitioned the court to refer the dispute to arbitration. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement. It was determined that the 1970/72 collective bargaining agreement, which included an arbitration clause, had been validly terminated by the union on September 30, 1972, through a 60-day notice. Consequently, issues that arose after this termination date, such as severance pay and welfare/pension fund contributions, were not subject to the lapsed arbitration agreement. The court also clarified that oral agreements were insufficient to compel arbitration, emphasizing the statutory requirement for a written agreement. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment, confirming the absence of a written contract compelling arbitration, and denied the defendant's petition.

National Labor Relations ActArbitration AgreementCollective BargainingContract TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentLabor DisputeWritten Agreement RequirementOral Agreement EnforceabilitySeverance Pay DisputePension Fund Contributions
References
4
Case No. AHM 144623
Regular
Apr 25, 2008

GARY WARD vs. GARDNER TRUCKING, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

This case involves Gary Ward as the applicant and Gardner Trucking and its insurer as defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be directed to the WCAB's Reconsideration Unit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReconsideration UnitGardner TruckingNational Interstate InsuranceGary WardApplicantDefendantOpinion and OrderDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Stewart

Plaintiffs Kevin A. Ward, Sr. and Pamela Ward filed a wrongful death action after their son was killed in a sprint car race by defendant Anthony Wayne Stewart. Stewart removed the suit to federal court and asserted an indemnification counterclaim based on two liability releases. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing negligence claims were barred by the Releases or by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved seeking dismissal of defendant's counterclaim for indemnification, arguing the Releases were inapplicable or unenforceable. A previous December 2017 Order invalidated the Releases and dismissed Stewart's counterclaim. Stewart then moved to certify certain portions of the December Order for interlocutory appeal or for partial final judgment, which the court denied. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting immediate appeal concerning the releases or the assumption-of-risk defense, and no just reason for delay for partial final judgment, concluding that the motion for certification and/or entry of partial final judgment is denied.

Wrongful Death ActionSprint Car RacingLiability ReleasesAssumption of RiskInterlocutory AppealPartial Final JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York General Obligations LawNegligence ClaimsIndemnification Counterclaim
References
61
Case No. CA 12-01229
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

STEIGER, GARY v. LPCIMINELLI, INC.

Plaintiff Gary Steiger commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained after tripping and falling while exiting a portable toilet at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer contracted with defendant Orchard Park CCRC, the landowner, for fiber optic installation. Defendant LPCiminelli, Inc. acted as the general contractor and was responsible for placing the portable toilets. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss certain Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against LPCiminelli, Inc. based on a lack of actual notice, and fully dismissing these claims against Orchard Park CCRC. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, ruling that the accident site was not a 'passageway' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). One justice dissented regarding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site AccidentDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeSupervisory ControlPortable Toilet PlacementTrip and Fall
References
40
Case No. 534883
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Tony Ward

Tony Ward, a bus driver for NYC Transit Authority, had an established claim for occupational disease related to multiple body parts from repetitive stress injuries. His treating physician determined and later revised a schedule loss of use (SLU) percentages for his left arm, hands, right leg, and feet. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) made SLU awards, which the employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, citing lack of credible medical evidence and non-compliance with guidelines. The Board upheld the WCLJ's findings, and denied the employer's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and emphasizing the Board's discretion in applying impairment guidelines.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuriesTreating Physician ReportMedical Impairment GuidelinesWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Discretion
References
14
Case No. CV-24-1330
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Gary Troiano

Claimant Gary Troiano appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's acceptance of Troiano's medical expert's report, ruling it should be precluded for non-adherence to Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Board had also denied Troiano's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division found that the Board erred in considering the employer's argument regarding the medical report's admissibility, as the employer failed to raise this objection in a timely manner. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's July 2024 decision and remitted the matter, deeming the appeal from the denial of reconsideration academic.

Medical expert reportTimelinessPreclusion of evidenceSchedule loss of useAdministrative reviewReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionRight wrist injuryIndependent Medical Examiner
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06399 [243 AD3d 514]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

Ward v. Times Sq. Hotel Owner LLC

Plaintiff Martin Joseph Ward was injured after slipping and falling on an ice condition near a ninth-floor landing of a cement staircase. He subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d), against Times Square Hotel Owner LLC. The Supreme Court granted his motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue to rebut plaintiff's testimony regarding the ice condition. The court also noted that a general contractor's liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) is not contingent on notice of the dangerous condition.

Slipping HazardsStairway AccidentIce ConditionIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241(6)Premises LiabilityAppellate DivisionWorker Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Brown

William J. Ward, a former registered nurse at a VA hospital, sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the APA after being discharged for verbal patient abuse. While the finding of abuse was upheld, the initial penalty of discharge was deemed arbitrary and capricious by the District Court and affirmed by the Second Circuit, leading to a remand for penalty redetermination. The Secretary subsequently reduced the penalty to a suspension, resulting in Ward's reinstatement and entitlement to back pay. This decision concerns Ward's motion for attorney's fees under the Back Pay Act, where the court grants in part the request, awarding $16,840.03 in attorney's fees and $600 in costs to be paid by the defendants. The court discusses the standard for attorney's fees, the warrant for such an award in the interest of justice, compensable hours considering contemporaneous records, and the appropriate rate of compensation, ultimately ruling that market rates apply to the union-salaried attorneys.

Attorney's FeesBack Pay ActAdministrative Procedure ActVerbal AbuseDischarge PenaltyReinstatementVeterans AffairsFederal CircuitSecond CircuitDistrict of Columbia Circuit
References
34
Case No. Docket # 45
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Empire Vision Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ward filed suit against Empire Vision Centers, Inc., alleging discrimination based on race, color, and age, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. The United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson addressed several pretrial motions in the consolidated case. Ward's motion to amend the complaint was denied as moot, and her motions to unseal discovery documents were denied. While some aspects of her motions to compel discovery were granted, specifically regarding patient charts and appointment schedules, other discovery requests, including interrogatories to non-parties and subpoenas, were denied. Finally, Ward's request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice, and her motion to appear by telephone was granted in part.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York Human Rights LawPretrial DiscoveryMotion to Amend ComplaintMotion to Compel DiscoveryMotion to Unseal DocumentsAppointment of CounselMagistrate Judge Decision
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 212 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