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

Jones v. Shalala

Plaintiff Glenn Jones challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Jones, who sustained a back injury in 1988, had his application for benefits denied initially and on reconsideration, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, focusing on the application of the treating physician rule and the determination of Jones's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. The court found that the ALJ properly considered contradictory medical evidence from consulting physicians and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Jones could perform sedentary work. Consequently, the court affirmed the Secretary's determination, denying Jones's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the defendant's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkBack InjuryMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionAffirmed DecisionFederal Court Action
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. State

Herbert W. Jones, Jr., an account clerk at Attica Correctional Facility, died from a gunshot wound during the 1971 Attica uprising's retaking operation. His widow, as administratrix, filed a wrongful death claim against the State, asserting both negligence and intentional tort. Earlier, the negligence claim was dismissed due to workers' compensation exclusivity, but the intentional tort claim was reinstated on appeal. This current appeal by the State challenges a judgment awarding damages to the claimant. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the "full-scale armed assault" during the retaking constituted excessive force, and the State's actions, including arming and directing troopers to fire, demonstrated an intent to inflict injury, thereby overcoming the workers' compensation exclusivity defense.

Attica prison riotwrongful deathintentional tortstate liabilityexcessive forceworkers' compensationgovernment misconductpolice brutalityprison uprisingcivil liability
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Jones

This case addresses a motion by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Defendant Jones. Jones was initially sued by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H&H) for $2,370, representing a six-day hospital stay. Jones then sought indemnification from the Commissioner, asserting eligibility for Medicaid and that an H&H-submitted claim for benefits was not honored. The Commissioner sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the Statute of Limitations, and constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The court denied the motion, finding it unclear that the city agency played no role in benefit administration, citing that the Statute of Limitations for indemnification runs from when the party is compelled to pay, and noting the lack of evidence that Jones received notice of a claim denial.

MedicaidIndemnificationThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSocial ServicesHospital BillingGovernment LiabilityHealthcare CostsCity Agency
References
3
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01431 [180 AD3d 1313]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Servisair LLC

Edward Jones, the claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that his right shoulder claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. Jones sustained a work-related injury in February 2014, and although his employer filed a C-2F form, Jones did not file his C-3 form until June 2017, exceeding the two-year statutory limit. The Board concluded that the C-2F form, along with other initial documents, was insufficient to reasonably infer a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that the claim was time-barred.

Time-barred claimWorkers' Compensation LawC-3 formC-2F formStatute of limitations defenseAppellate reviewShoulder injurySubstantial evidenceBoard decisionNotice of case assembly
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 36,336 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