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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Steven Kroesen (Deceased), Jennifer Kroesen (Widow) vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. ADJ8462686, ADJ8462674, ADJ8462669, ADJ8458516, ADJ8454515
Regular
May 06, 2016

BENIGIA SANTANA vs. TRI-S ENTERPRISES, INC., WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded a WCJ's order dismissing a lien claim, and remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits of the lien. The WCAB also reduced sanctions imposed on the lien claimant's representative from \$500 to \$100, citing the policy to favor hearings on the merits. While the representative's tardiness and conduct were not condoned, dismissal was deemed too severe a penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationWCJOrder Dismissing LienCompromise and ReleaseSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Hearing representativeTardiness
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. ADJ2200491 (OXN 0142346)
Regular
Aug 23, 2010

MARK FOLEY vs. AXIUM ENTERPRISES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal of Nepac Providers' lien, and returned the matter for a hearing on the merits. While Nepac failed to personally appear at a lien conference, the Board found that the dismissal was premature given Nepac's attempts to arrange telephone availability and its prompt objection to the notice of dismissal. The Board cited the policy favoring hearings on the merits and found Nepac had made a sufficient showing to avoid default.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien DismissalLien ConferenceCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineMedical TreatmentCompound MedicationsDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
Case No. ADJ1297763
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

MARTIN LOPEZ GARCIA vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case concerns a lien claimant, Frontier Medical Inc., whose lien for durable medical equipment was dismissed by a WCJ for failing to appear at a scheduled lien trial. The lien claimant argued their non-appearance was an inadvertent mistake and that they were entitled to a hearing on the merits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board emphasized the legal policy favoring hearings on the merits, especially in workers' compensation cases, and found the lien claimant's explanation for non-appearance warranted further consideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantLien trialNotice of Intention to DismissDue processHearing on the meritsSanctionsLabor Code section 4903(b)Durable medical equipmentInadvertent mistake
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Noto v. Ford Motor Co.

A claimant who worked as a welder for 26 years developed a 30.6% binaural hearing loss attributed to high noise levels during employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the self-insured employer entirely responsible for this loss. The employer appealed, arguing that a portion of the disability was attributable to the claimant's previous employment with Growers & Packers Cooperative & Canning Company. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-ee (1), which holds the last employer liable for total compensation for hearing loss unless specific conditions for apportionment are met and proven. Despite the employer conducting a preplacement hearing examination and notifying Growers & Packers, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between any preexisting hearing loss and the prior employment, siding with the claimant's testimony. The employer's other contentions, including a request for further record development, were deemed without merit.

Hearing LossOccupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationApportionmentLast Employer LiabilityPreplacement ExaminationNoise ExposureEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,930 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