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
Nov 03, 1997

Claim of Oord v. Estate of Zielinski

Claimant was injured while logging timber on land owned by the estate of Alexander H. Zielinski in Schenectady County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that decedent’s estate was a contractor under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56. The estate, through its executor Walter Zielinski, appealed this decision, arguing it did not own the timber after selling its rights and did not have a direct contract with Subik, claimant’s employer. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusions that the estate owned the timber when the claimant was injured and had an agreement with Subik. Therefore, the award of workers’ compensation benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationContractor LiabilityTimber LoggingEstate LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardProperty OwnershipHazardous Employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Capodagli v. West Seneca Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a to a claimant's award of benefits. The claimant was injured in October 2003, received benefits, and the case was closed. The employer later sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund requested claimant's testimony regarding advance payments of compensation, which was denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, who determined liability shifted. The Board affirmed. The appellate court found that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the record lacked information on whether the claimant performed light or limited duties while receiving full wages, which could prevent the shifting of liability. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 25-aAdvance PaymentsLiability ShiftMedical TreatmentLight Duty WorkSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. Reicon Group, LLC

Claimant, a dock builder, was injured and sought state workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested the Workers’ Compensation Board's jurisdiction, asserting that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) was applicable and a waiver of federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113 was required. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found concurrent jurisdiction between state law and the LHWCA for land-based injuries, rendering a § 113 waiver unnecessary. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that § 113 applies only where a federal scheme preempts state remedies, which is not the case with LHWCA. The court also highlighted that concurrent jurisdiction prevents double recovery.

Concurrent JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWorkers’ Compensation BoardAdmiralty LawFederal PreemptionWaiver of Federal RightsLand-Based InjuriesDock BuilderDouble RecoveryJones Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andrews v. Pinkerton Security

Claimant, a security guard, injured his left knee at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, concluding the injury, though occurring in the course of employment, did not arise out of it. This court reversed the Board's determination, emphasizing the statutory presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 [1] that an an injury occurring in the course of employment also arises out of it. The court found the Board failed to provide substantial medical evidence to rebut this presumption, despite a mention of a prior injury. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionRebuttal EvidenceMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalLeft Knee Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mandziara v. Lowe's Home Centers

In 1995, the claimant suffered a back injury in Pennsylvania, leading to a workers' compensation claim. After multiple surgeries, symptoms were resolved by June 2001. In May 2003, while working for Lowe's Home Centers in Broome County, the claimant re-injured their back, initiating a new claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that apportionment did not apply to the workers' compensation award. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that apportionment is a factual issue and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court highlighted the claimant's asymptomatic period of over 14 months prior to the 2003 injury.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentBack InjuryPrior InjurySubstantial EvidenceAsymptomatic PeriodMedical OpinionCausal RelationshipAppeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2002

Claim of Petitt v. Eaton & Van Winkle

The claimant was injured in a 1993 elevator accident but did not file a workers' compensation claim until 1999. The Workers' Compensation Board dismissed the claim as time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which mandates dismissal if a claim is not filed within two years of the accident. On appeal, the claimant argued the employer and carrier waived the § 28 defense by failing to timely raise it and by making advance payments. The Board found the defense was timely raised at the first hearing and determined that the employer's one-day wage payment was sick leave, not an advance payment of compensation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTime-Barred ClaimWaiver DefenseAdvance Payment of CompensationSick Leave PolicyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionElevator Accident
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03956 [206 AD3d 1322]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2022

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

Marc Lawrence Habif, a licensed chiropractor, appealed the denial of his application to renew his authorization to treat injured workers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board. The Board's denial was based on an investigation that revealed Habif accepted $27,500 in payments from Elite Medical Supply for prescribing their durable medical equipment (DME), which constituted impermissible kickbacks. Habif contended he was improperly denied a hearing and that the payments were for services outside of medical treatment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment dismissing Habif's petition, concluding he was not entitled to a hearing, the denial was adequately explained, and the Board's determination was rational.

ChiropractorMedical Provider AuthorizationDurable Medical EquipmentKickbacksProfessional MisconductRenewal ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAppellate DivisionThird-Party PaymentsJudicial Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 23,697 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