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

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF MERSON v. McNally

The Court of Appeals addresses whether a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) can be issued for a Type I action, even when the project has been modified to accommodate environmental concerns. Reviewing two related cases, Matter of Merson v McNally and Matter of Philipstown Indus. Park v Town Bd., the Court examines a mining project by Philipstown Industrial Park, Inc. (PIP) in the Town of Philipstown, Putnam County. The Planning Board, acting as the lead agency, issued a negative declaration after PIP revised its plans in response to public and agency input regarding noise, traffic, and groundwater. The Appellate Division had annulled this declaration, viewing the modifications as impermissible 'conditioned negative declarations.' The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such project adjustments, made through an open and deliberative process to mitigate potential adverse effects, are a legitimate part of SEQRA review and do not invalidate a negative declaration. The cases are remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of unaddressed issues, including preemption.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationMined Land Reclamation LawType I ActionProject ModificationEnvironmental Impact StatementLead AgencyZoning LawAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case, Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., was heard by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The decision was rendered on March 23, 2004. The outcome of the case was that the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued. This indicates a resolution where further judicial review was halted by the appellant.

Appeal WithdrawnDiscontinuedWorkers' CompensationCourt of AppealsNew YorkCase Resolution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co.

This Per Curiam decision addresses appeals concerning whether employers and their carriers are entitled to credit for lump-sum settlements in reopened workers' compensation cases. The cases of Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co. and Yurivich v. Sans Souci Nursing Home both involve claimants who received lump-sum awards for partial disabilities but later experienced worsening conditions, leading to reopened cases and increased awards. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied credit to the carriers for the original lump-sum settlements, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court held that lump-sum settlements under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(5-b) cannot be indefinitely extended by excluding weeks where the claimant earned pre-injury wages. It affirmed that carriers assume the risk of reopened cases due to changed conditions, with no statutory or decisional basis for adjusting for claimant earnings during the period the lump-sum award covered.

Lump-sum settlementWorkmen's Compensation Law § 15(5-b)Credit for settlementReopened caseIncreased disabilityPost-disability earningsPre-disability earningsNonschedule adjustmentCaisson diseaseHerniated disc
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camphill Village, U. S. A., Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Board

This case concerns an appeal from a determination by the Workmen's Compensation Board, which found a nonprofit membership corporation, operating as a mental institution providing rehabilitation for the mentally handicapped, subject to the Disability Benefits Law. The central issue was whether 'co-workers' assisting handicapped individuals were considered employees, despite receiving no direct salary. The Board concluded that the provision of necessities like housing, food, and benefits such as Blue Cross and Workmen’s Compensation constituted wages, acting as a quid pro quo for their services. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that the co-workers earned their livelihood through their activities for the appellant and did not qualify for statutory exemptions for volunteers or professionals under the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Disability Benefits LawWorkmen's Compensation LawEmployment StatusCo-workersNonprofit CorporationMental InstitutionWagesVolunteersEmployee DefinitionFringe Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ettlinger v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal by an insurance carrier challenging a decision made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The Board had imposed an award on Office Temporaries, an employer specializing in providing temporary workers, while relieving Oxford Paper Company from responsibility. Office Temporaries, which manages wages, benefits, and control over its temporary employees, contests the appeal. The claimant, a temporary secretary supplied by Office Temporaries to Oxford Paper Company, sustained an injury while working on Oxford's premises. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the original decision and award, citing the precedent set by *Matter of Meyer* v. *Tops Temporary Personnel*.

Workers' CompensationTemporary EmploymentEmployer LiabilityDual EmploymentInsurance AppealAgency RelationshipWorkmen’s Compensation Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00364
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2022

Matter of Stop Irresponsible Frick Dev. v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment denying a petition to annul a resolution by the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA). The BSA's resolution had approved The Frick Collection's application for a zoning variance. The court declined to dismiss the appeal as moot and found that the BSA had providently exercised its discretion in granting the variance. The decision was based on a rational basis and supported by substantial evidence, including a detailed discussion of programmatic goals and alternatives. Additionally, the BSA's issuance of a 'negative declaration' regarding environmental impact was deemed appropriate, as the agency had thoroughly examined relevant environmental concerns.

Zoning VarianceEnvironmental Impact ReviewSEQRAAppellate ReviewBoard of Standards and AppealsHistoric PreservationCultural ResourcesRational BasisSubstantial EvidenceNegative Declaration
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Passante v. Walden Printing Co.

The case examines the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, which grants automatic death benefits to widows but requires widowers to prove dependency on deceased female employees. The court, applying strict scrutiny based on Frontiero v Richardson and Weinberger v Wiesenfeld, determined that this sex-based classification violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It found the dependency requirement discriminates against working women by minimizing their contributions and denies surviving husbands benefits readily available to widows, creating dissimilar treatment for similarly situated individuals. The court rejected arguments of administrative convenience or the rationale from Kahn v Shevin, asserting that death benefits are derived from employment, not mere survivorship. Consequently, the dependency requirement for husbands under Section 16 is declared unconstitutional, and the case is reversed and remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board to award benefits to surviving husbands on the same basis as widows.

Equal ProtectionFourteenth AmendmentSex DiscriminationGender ClassificationDeath BenefitsWorkmen's CompensationSpousal DependencyConstitutional ChallengeStrict ScrutinyStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coe v. House Inside, Ltd.

The claimant appealed decisions by the Workmen's Compensation Board regarding accidental injuries. She suffered injuries in 1967 from a fall on her employer's truck and filed both a compensation claim and a negligence action. The Board decided the compensation claim despite her request to delay, which subsequently barred her civil suit. An initial appeal to this court was dismissed, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case. This court now finds that the fundamental issue of the Board's refusal to withhold its decision, and whether it was arbitrary, must be resolved before reaching the merits. Consequently, the decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board for further proceedings to develop the record on this specific issue.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewJurisdictionCivil Action BarRemandArbitrary DecisionClaimant's RightsBoard DiscretionProcedural IssueScope of Employment
References
4
Case No. ADJ18816357
Regular
May 15, 2025

JERRY WILLIAMS vs. PRIMORIS ELECTRIC, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were to occur. The decision emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board, referencing precedents like Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. and Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. for this stance.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 36,326 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