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

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
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
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
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
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. 10-74894-ast
Regular Panel Decision

International Tobacco Partners, Ltd. v. United States Department of Agriculture

This case involved cross-motions for summary judgment between the Debtor, International Tobacco Partners, Ltd., and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The core dispute centered on whether assessments under the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (FETRA) constituted excise taxes and their priority in bankruptcy. The Court determined that FETRA assessments are indeed excise taxes, serving a public purpose by aiding the tobacco industry's transition from subsidies to a free market. Consequently, the USDA was granted a priority claim for prepetition assessments from June 25, 2007, to June 24, 2010, and eligibility for an administrative claim for postpetition assessments starting June 25, 2010.

Bankruptcy LawExcise TaxRegulatory FeesSummary JudgmentPriority ClaimsAdministrative ClaimsTobacco Industry RegulationGovernment SubsidiesFair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (FETRA)Chapter 11
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Holley v. Syracuse Utilities

A claimant sustained a left knee injury in June 2001 and received workers' compensation benefits, including a 25% schedule loss of use in 2003. No further benefits were paid until June 2012, when a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits for missed work between August and October 2008, credited against the prior schedule loss of use award. In October 2012, the employer's carrier requested a transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request as premature. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the last payment of compensation occurred in June 2012, thus the statutory three-year period for transferring liability had not been met.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferSchedule Loss of UseLast Payment of CompensationCredit for OverpaymentStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardPremature Application
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case addresses whether peaceful picketing, ostensibly to inform the public about substandard wages, can be enjoined as a secondary boycott or an inducement to strike in a jurisdictional dispute. The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, alleging unfair labor practices after Local 25 picketed a job site where Unity Electric Co. was a subcontractor. Despite Local 25's claim that the picketing was solely informational, employees of other subcontractors refused to cross the picket lines, causing work stoppages. The court, considering Local 25's past actions and the totality of circumstances, found reasonable cause to believe that the picketing had an objective beyond mere public information, aiming to effect a secondary boycott and compel the assignment of electrical work to Local 25 members. Consequently, Local 25 was enjoined from further picketing at the Highland site pending final disposition by the Board.

Labor DisputeSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputePicketingTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesArea StandardsNational Labor Relations ActUnion ActivityConstruction Industry
References
10
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 Andres v. Occidental Chemical

The case involves a claimant who filed for death benefits following a decedent's passing, attributed to asbestos exposure, after previous disability claims were closed for lack of medical evidence. The employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled § 25-a inapplicable, citing the inability to establish a date of disablement. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, concluding that the claim for death benefits was made within seven years of death, rendering paragraphs (1) and (2) of § 25-a (1) inapplicable. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of § 25-a (1) was also deemed inapplicable due to the lack of a discernable date of injury or disablement in the occupational disease context.

Asbestos exposureDeath benefitsWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial FundsDate of disablementDate of injurySeven-year ruleLiability shiftOccupational diseaseAppellate review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,762 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