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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2005

Claim of Haas v. Gross Electric

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from July 13, 2005, which denied his claim for benefits, finding no causally related injury. The claim stemmed from a December 17, 2002, work-related motor vehicle accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claim established based on medical expert opinions linking a back injury to the accident. However, this determination was rescinded after the carrier submitted newly discovered evidence—medical records from claimant’s primary care physician, Thomas Coppens—revealing prior back injuries and that the current problems began while wrapping presents on December 24, 2002. Subsequent medical opinions became ambivalent or changed, leading to the disallowance of the claim by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision later affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Motor Vehicle AccidentBack InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert OpinionPrior Medical HistoryNewly Discovered EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewClaim DisallowanceAppellate AffirmationBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1986

Durivage v. Diamond International Corp.

The claimant, employed by Diamond International Corporation, was discharged due to an extremely poor attendance record, despite having sustained two compensable injuries. After her discharge, she filed a grievance, and an arbitrator upheld the employer's decision, finding it justified. Subsequently, the claimant filed a claim alleging that her termination was in retaliation for filing compensation claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected this claim, a decision which was later affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion, noting that most of the claimant's absences were unrelated to her work injuries and that she had received multiple warnings regarding her attendance.

Retaliatory dischargePoor attendanceWorkers' compensation claimEmployer discriminationJustified terminationArbitrator findingAttendance policySubstantial evidenceBoard decisionAppellate review
References
2
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pinto v. Southport Correctional Facility

Claimant, a teacher at a maximum-security correctional facility, experienced severe head pains and disorientation, leading to a claim for workers' compensation benefits for work-related stress, depression, headaches, and memory loss. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding the presumption of work-related injury rebutted and concluding that the stress experienced was not greater than that usually encountered in his work environment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny the claim on the merits. While the court disagreed with the Board's finding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) due to personnel decisions, it upheld the Board's alternate basis for denial, stating that the claimant failed to show the stress was beyond what similarly situated workers experienced.

Workers' CompensationStress-related injuryMental injuryCausationPresumption of injuryRebuttal of presumptionPersonnel decisionWork environmentCorrectional facilityTeacher
References
14
Case No. 535434
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin

Claimant Kimberly McLaurin, a train operator for the New York City Transit Authority, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging she contracted COVID-19 and suffered consequential psychological injury due to workplace exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding insufficient medical evidence of COVID-19 contraction and that the stress experienced was not greater than similarly situated workers. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the disallowance of the COVID-19 contraction and consequential injury claims due to lack of medical proof. However, it reversed the decision regarding the alternative claim for direct psychological injury, finding the Board improperly applied a disparate burden. The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration of the psychological injury claim consistent with the guidance in *Matter of Anderson v City of Yonkers* to determine if an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event existed and if a causal connection to the alleged injury was present.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryCausationWorkplace ExposureMedical EvidenceStress-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thomasula v. Wilson Concrete & Masonry

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained during employment. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, finding claimant's testimony not credible due to a delay in seeking medical attention, failure to file an accident report, and admitting to misrepresenting the injury as non-work-related for private insurance. Claimant appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the Board's authority to resolve credibility issues. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that the injury was not work-related. Claimant's remaining arguments were considered and rejected as lacking merit.

Workers' CompensationCredibility AssessmentAccidental InjuryEmployment InjuryMedical Attention DelayAccident ReportInsurance MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBoard's Authority
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses a product liability action filed by Alonso and Elizabeth Lara against Delta International Machinery Corp. following Alonso Lara's hand injury from a Delta table saw. The court granted Delta's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs' expert, Stanley H. Fein, finding his design defect opinions unreliable due to a lack of testing and speculative methodology. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' design defect claim was dismissed for lack of admissible expert testimony. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, acknowledging a genuine dispute regarding whether adequate warnings could have been conveyed to Lara by third parties despite his inability to read English. Additionally, claims for breach of express warranty, manufacturing defect, and loss of services were deemed abandoned, and the breach of implied warranty claim was dismissed as time-barred.

Products LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702Table Saw AccidentIndustrial SafetyMechanical Engineering
References
128
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04896 [186 AD3d 1770]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2020

Matter of Wen Liu v. Division of Gen. Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Sch. of Medicine

Wen Liu, a data programming analyst, filed for workers' compensation benefits in May 2010, claiming a neck injury from a June 5, 2008 fall at work due to dizziness. The employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, finding no causal connection between the injuries and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision, which the claimant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the employer's procedural failure did not absolve the claimant of proving a causal relationship. Substantial evidence supported the Board's rejection of the claimant's medical proof, as emergency room records contradicted her later descriptions of the incident and indicated pre-existing conditions.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical EvidenceTimely NoticeBurden of ProofInjuryFallDizzinessNeck InjuryCarpal Tunnel Syndrome
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 23,651 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