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 18, 2000

Ertner v. County of Chenango

Petitioner, a correction officer employed by the Chenango County Sheriff's Department, sustained injuries after falling downstairs while inspecting cells at the County Jail. She was awarded workers' compensation benefits but subsequently denied General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, with the denial based on the injury not being incurred during a job function "peculiar to a correction officer." Petitioner's challenge to this determination was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal, distinguishing between Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207-c, stating the latter applies to injuries incurred from "heightened risks and duties" peculiar to specialized employment, which a fall down stairs is not considered.

Correction Officer InjuryGeneral Municipal LawWorkers CompensationPublic Safety Officer BenefitsLine of DutyHeightened RiskJob FunctionAppellate DecisionMunicipal EmployeeInjury Classification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2000

Sutherland v. Village of Suffern

The petitioner, a police officer, was injured while attempting to open a door at the station house and subsequently applied for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The Chief of the Village of Suffern Police Department denied these benefits, leading the petitioner to initiate an Article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, denied the petition and dismissed the case. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court citing *Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau* to underscore that General Municipal Law § 207-c is intended for injuries arising from heightened risks associated with criminal justice duties, concluding the denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also clarified that claims for Workers' Compensation benefits should be addressed to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Police officer injuryGeneral Municipal Law 207-c benefitsDenial of benefitsScope of employmentAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Division decisionWorkers' Compensation jurisdictionMunicipal employee benefitsSuffern Police Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grasso v. Schenectady County Public Library

The plaintiff, an employee of Schenectady County Public Library, commenced an action against the library and two of its employees for sexual harassment, prima facie tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, following her termination after a medical leave. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing the plaintiff's failure to join the County and to serve a notice of claim as required by County Law § 52 and General Municipal Law § 50-i. The Supreme Court denied the motion, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division held that while General Municipal Law § 50-i does not apply to discrimination claims, County Law § 52, incorporating General Municipal Law § 50-e, does apply to claims against the county-operated library, requiring a notice of claim. Due to the absence of a notice of claim, the claims against the Schenectady County Public Library were dismissed. However, the claims against the individual employees were not dismissed, as the defendants failed to prove the County's duty to indemnify them or that the County was a necessary party.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment TerminationMotion to DismissNotice of ClaimCounty LawGeneral Municipal LawPublic Officers LawSchenectady CountyAppellate DivisionPrima Facie Tort
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. City of Gloversville

A firefighter for the City of Gloversville sought a declaratory judgment to establish his entitlement to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a for a knee injury, even though he was not currently disabled. The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court held that the action was premature, as declaratory relief is not available for controversies contingent on future events that may never occur, and the statute does not allow for a "status" determination without a present need for benefits. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint.

Declaratory JudgmentFuture EntitlementFirefighter BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aPrematurity DoctrineAdvisory OpinionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReversalSummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
8
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

Dingee v. County of Dutchess

The petitioner, a correction officer for Dutchess County, sought benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c after sustaining injuries when his chair collapsed. An arbitrator denied these benefits, ruling that the injuries did not arise from heightened risks specific to his employment. The petitioner then sought to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court denied the petition, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal, as the petitioner failed to identify any public policy precluding the arbitrator’s determination and the decision was consistent with existing decisional authority.

Arbitration awardGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cPublic policyCorrection officerWorkplace injuryDutchess CountyCPLR article 75Benefits denialJudicial interventionCollective bargaining agreement
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miele v. Town of Clarkstown

A police officer, after an initial back injury in 1998 for which he received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, later ceased working again in 2000 due to continued back pain. The Chief of Police of the Town of Clarkstown denied his request for GML § 207-c benefits for this subsequent absence, determining it was unrelated to the original injury based on a doctor's report. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious and seeking to compel the Town to award benefits. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Chief of Police's determination had a rational basis in the record, thus not arbitrary and capricious.

Workers' CompensationPolice OfficerLine of Duty InjuryBenefits DenialCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousRational BasisAppellate ReviewBack InjuryGeneral Municipal Law 207-c
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howell v. County of Albany

A correction officer's General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits were suspended by the Albany County Sheriff after he refused a light duty assignment following a workplace injury in September 2009. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging due process violations because the Hearing Officer supposedly refused to consider proof of post-traumatic stress disorder and relied on evidence outside the record. The Court determined that the petitioner was afforded due process, noting that a predetermination hearing was held where he presented witnesses and cross-examined the respondents'. The Court found no violation of procedural due process as the petitioner did not raise a genuine dispute regarding his PTSD diagnosis before the hearing. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the determination to suspend benefits and dismissed the petition.

Due ProcessGeneral Municipal Law 207-cLight Duty AssignmentDisability BenefitsCorrection OfficerAdministrative HearingProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCredibility Assessment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 19,449 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