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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 25, 2013, which denied his application to include a partial right rotator cuff tear under his existing 2002 work-related injury claim. The Board found that claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2002 automobile accident and the 2009 rotator cuff tear, despite the opinion of his orthopedist. The orthopedist acknowledged that age-related degeneration could cause such tears independently of trauma. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the orthopedist's testimony did not convincingly prove a causal relationship.

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Strujan v. New York Hospital

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant's 1997 work-related injury. A claim for consequential psychiatric injuries was denied in 2010, and the employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. While a WCLJ initially granted this transfer, the Board reversed, concluding the case was not 'truly closed' due to unresolved issues, including the claimant's alleged migraines. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the case was not truly closed, thereby preventing the shift of liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesTrue ClosureLiability ShiftMigrainesPsychiatric InjuryConsequential InjuryBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ7781989; ADJ8262771
Regular
Oct 03, 2013

MIRIAN GARCIA vs. COOPER COLD FOODS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY as administrator for STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is granting reconsideration of its own prior decision and rescinding a July 23, 2013 decision that had overturned a prior finding of 2% permanent disability for applicant's right knee injury. The WCAB determined that its August 9, 2012 order granting reconsideration was improvidently granted because the applicant had already filed a successive and improper petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the prior order and the subsequent rescinded decision are vacated, and the applicant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

WCABReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjurySuccessive PetitionImprovidently GrantedVacated
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Palazzolo v. Dutchess County

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left arm in July 2000. Although no lost wages were claimed initially, diagnostic tests were authorized, and issues of permanency and average weekly wages remained unresolved, with a directive for the employer to provide payroll records. In 2013, after claimant sought further medical treatment, the employer requested to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing the statutory time limits had elapsed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, finding the case was never truly closed due to outstanding issues and unfulfilled directives. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being considered truly closed for the purpose of shifting liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferCase ClosureOutstanding IssuesPermanency DeterminationAverage Weekly WagesPayroll RecordsAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary restraining order against Local 25, a labor union, alleging unfair labor practices against Sarrow-Suburban Electric Co., Inc. and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. The charges, filed on September 14, 1964, claimed Local 25 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by attempting to force employers to assign work to its members. A preliminary investigation by the Board found reasonable cause to believe the charges were true, supporting the request for injunctive relief under Section 10(J) of the Act. Evidence showed Local 25 demanded Brunswick Hospital break its contract with Sarrow and assign work to its members, subsequently initiating a work stoppage through picketing. The Court found reasonable cause for the Director's belief and granted the temporary restraining order.

unfair labor practicetemporary restraining orderlabor disputeNational Labor Relations Actpicketingwork stoppagelabor unioninjunctionDistrict Courtcollective bargaining
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rathbun v. D'Ella Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc.

In February 1999, claimant experienced work-related wrist and elbow pain, later diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier initially accepted the claim and authorized medical treatment. In 2006, claimant sought authorization for left wrist surgery, which the carrier denied, asserting that liability shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. This was based on the lapse of seven years from the injury date and three years from the last compensation payment. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed § 25-a inapplicable. However, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the case was "truly closed" in July 2003 when right wrist surgery was authorized, as no further proceedings were contemplated. Consequently, the court held that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a indeed applies, shifting liability to the Special Fund, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational InjuryMedical Authorization DenialCase ReopeningStatute of LimitationsLapse of TimeTruly Closed Case DoctrineAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. ADJ9022023
Regular
Jul 14, 2014

Katherine Ann Burton vs. MOTEL 6, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to amend an award. The original award found temporary total disability from July 22, 2013, to November 6, 2013, but only awarded indemnity benefits through October 4, 2013. The Board, adopting the WCJ's recommendation, amended the award to reflect temporary total disability specifically from July 22, 2013, to October 4, 2013. The issue of benefits after October 4, 2013, was deferred.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Ordertemporary total disabilitytemporary disability indemnityworkers' compensation appeals boardWCJLiberty Mutual InsuranceMotel 6Report and Recommendationamended
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,208 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