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

MATTER OF ATKINSON v. City of New York

Petitioner Lily Atkinson, a healthcare worker for the City of New York, developed chronic arthritis after a rubella vaccination. She was awarded workers' compensation and also compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Program (Vaccine Act). The City of New York attempted to enforce a workers' compensation lien against her Vaccine Act recovery. Atkinson challenged this in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the Vaccine Act award was not subject to such a lien and violated Federal law. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division affirmed a judgment prohibiting the City from enforcing the lien. The court interpreted the Workers' Compensation Law to avoid constitutional concerns under the Supremacy Clause, preventing the City from enforcing the lien against Atkinson's Vaccine Act recovery.

Workers' Compensation LienVaccine ActFederal PreemptionSupremacy ClauseStatutory InterpretationChronic ArthritisEmployment InjuryNew York LawFederal LawThird-Party Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ15229971
Regular
Mar 17, 2023

GRANT ELLISON vs. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award to an employee injured by a COVID-19 vaccine. The Board found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, citing the "dual purpose" rule where the employer strongly encouraged vaccination to reduce employee absences. The Board also applied the "personal convenience" doctrine, stating acts for comfort and convenience while at work are incidental to employment. Therefore, the employee's vaccine injury was deemed work-related, and the employer is liable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGrant EllisonCity of San BuenaventuraAthens AdministratorsCOVID-19 vaccinationarising out of employmentcourse of employmentdual purpose rulepersonal convenience doctrinework-related injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips ex rel. B.P. v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Nicole Phillips, Fabian Mendoza-Vaca, and Dina Check filed an Amended Complaint challenging New York's vaccination practice on both federal and state law grounds. The defendants, City of New York, New York City Department of Education, Eric T. Schneiderman, and Nirav R. Shah, filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs alleged violations of their First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and state law, based on sincere religious beliefs contrary to vaccination. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing all federal claims by referencing Supreme Court precedent (Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts) which found no constitutional right to religious exemption from vaccinations. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, dismissing them as well.

VaccinationReligious ExemptionFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionMotion to DismissFederal ClaimsState ClaimsParental RightsSchool Exclusion
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00957 [213 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal by tenured public school teachers, Christine O'Reilly, Lucia Jennifer Lanzer, Ingrid Romero, and Elizabeth Loiacono, against the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York. They challenged an arbitration award, known as the Impact Award, which established procedures for religious and medical exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, negotiated by their union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and the Department of Education (DOE). The petitioners were placed on leave without pay for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate. The court affirmed the dismissal of their CPLR articles 75 and 78 petitions. It found that the teachers lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party. Additionally, the court ruled that placement on leave for non-compliance with a condition of employment, such as vaccination, is not a disciplinary action, making Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a inapplicable. The court also concluded that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, given the opportunities provided for compliance or exemptions. A dissenting opinion argued that a new, nonstatutory condition of employment cannot be imposed on tenured teachers without legislative action, and they are entitled to due process under Education Law § 3020-a before being placed on unpaid leave or dismissed.

Tenured TeachersCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateArbitration AwardLeave Without PayDue Process RightsEmployment ConditionsCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewPublic Education Employees
References
25
Case No. ADJ1160066 (MON 0261712)
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

ROBERT VILARINO vs. CHROMATICS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, For FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a worker who sustained a permanent total disability after receiving a voluntary flu vaccination at his employer's premises. The employer sought a credit for the worker's third-party settlement against its workers' compensation liability. The Appeals Board rescinded a prior finding of employer negligence, concluding that the employer was not liable for the independent contractor's actions in administering the vaccine. The Board found no evidence of employer negligence and granted the full third-party settlement amount as a credit to the employer.

Transverse myelitisInfluenza vaccineThird party creditEmployer negligenceNon-delegable dutyIndependent contractorMedical malpracticeStandard of careVicarious liabilityReconsideration
References
16
Case No. ADJ10575875
Regular
Jul 12, 2019

DANA BROUSSARD vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LANCASTER STATE PRISON

This case concerns an office technician who developed transverse myelitis following a Hepatitis B vaccination series received as part of her employment. The applicant's physician, Dr. Chodakiewitz, concluded that it was medically probable the vaccination caused the injury, despite acknowledging other potential causes could not be definitively ruled out. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found substantial evidence supporting injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of AOE/COE, reversing the prior decision to defer this issue.

Transverse MyelitisHepatitis B VaccinationNeurological InjuryMedical CausationAOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationSubstantial EvidenceReasonable Medical ProbabilityQME OpinionOffice Technician
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03609
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Matter of Tandian (Commissioner of Labor)

Fatou B. Tandian, a registered nurse, was terminated for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine, with her request for religious exemption denied due to a lack of sincerely held religious beliefs. She was subsequently disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits by the Department of Labor and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Tandian voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause, as her reasons for refusing the vaccine were personal and secular. The appeal from an earlier Board decision was dismissed as moot.

Unemployment InsuranceCOVID-19 VaccineReligious ExemptionGood CauseVoluntary SeparationAppellate DivisionRegistered NurseHealthcare EmploymentSincere BeliefUnemployment Benefits Disqualification
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00217 [223 AD3d 1077]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2024

Matter of Antonaros (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Diana Antonaros, a teacher's assistant, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits after voluntarily leaving her job without good cause by failing to meet a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because Antonaros was given insufficient time (four days, including a weekend) to comply with the vaccine mandate. Antonaros had sought an extension to consult her doctor but was denied. The court reversed the decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, specifically for the Board to consider whether claimant was terminated for misconduct.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateUnemployment insurance benefitsVoluntary separationGood causeDue processAppellate reviewNew York City Department of HealthTeacher's assistantUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial evidence
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06400 [233 AD3d 1307]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2024

Matter of Shmulsky v. Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Inc.

Claimant Katherine Shmulsky sought workers' compensation benefits for dysautonomia, alleging it was a causally-related injury from a COVID-19 vaccination received in December 2020 while employed by Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Inc. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Board reversed, finding that claimant failed to demonstrate her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, as the vaccination was encouraged but not mandated by the employer, with no repercussions for refusal. Claimant's application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 VaccineCausally Related InjuryScope of EmploymentAdverse ReactionDysautonomiaEmployer PolicyVoluntary VaccinationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2011

Pettit v. Scipio Volunteer Fire District

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter and EMT for the Scipio Volunteer Fire District, sustained multiple injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, in a one-car accident while returning home after receiving a swine flu vaccination. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that her injuries were incurred in the course of her duties as a volunteer firefighter, awarding her benefits. The District and its workers' compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding that the District strongly encouraged EMTs to receive the vaccination and facilitated its provision, making the activity compensable under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 5 (1) (p) as participation in a program to maintain performance of duties.

Volunteer FirefighterEMTSwine Flu VaccineLine of DutyCar AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryCompensabilityStatutory ConstructionBenefit LawScipio Volunteer Fire District
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 26 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