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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. UNKNOWN CASE NUMBER
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1970

Matter of Stange v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc.

This is a placeholder summary. No legal text was provided for analysis, hence specific case details, parties involved, and the judicial outcome cannot be accurately extracted. The purpose of this output is to demonstrate the JSON structure when actual data is unavailable. Therefore, all fields contain placeholder values.

References
0
Case No. ADJ1174751 (SAC 0331800), ADJ6448656, ADJ6448658
Regular
May 22, 2008

LAWRENCE BURNELL vs. SOLANO GARBAGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in one case (ADJ1174751) and denied it in two others (ADJ6448656 and ADJ6448658). For the granted case, the Board amended the decision to find no permanent disability due to a back injury, based on a later medical report that superseded an earlier one. Reconsideration was denied in the other two cases, as the defendant failed to prove overlap of disability for apportionment purposes as required by law. The Board affirmed the original decisions in ADJ6448656 and ADJ6448658.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSolano GarbageLawrence BurnellADJ1174751ADJ6448656ADJ6448658ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2013

Claim of Pankiw v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Claimant, who suffered work-related injuries in 2004, had a 20% schedule loss of use of his left arm opined in 2007, and a consequential right shoulder injury was added in 2008 with a 30% schedule loss of use, for which the Special Fund became liable. In 2011, claimant sought further action, leading a WCLJ to transfer liability to the Special Fund. However, the Board reversed, finding the case was not "truly closed" because the issue of the left arm injury remained unaddressed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the lack of resolution on the left arm injury meant further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being deemed truly closed for liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseConsequential InjuryCase ClosureLiability ShiftAppellate DivisionFactual DeterminationCompensation PaymentsUnaddressed Issues
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2013

Claim of Hunter v. Tops Market, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant had an established workers' compensation claim for right carpal tunnel syndrome, with a later diagnosis of left carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite a 10% schedule loss of use for the right hand, the employer's request to transfer liability was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the case was never truly closed because issues regarding the left carpal tunnel syndrome remained unresolved, as evidenced by a doctor's report. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further compensation proceedings were still contemplated, thereby preventing the transfer of liability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseTransfer of LiabilityCase ClosureBoard Decision AffirmedAppellate DivisionNerve Conduction Study
References
7
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
Jul 05, 2011

Claim of Mucci v. New York State Department of Corrections

In December 1996, a claimant suffered a work-related left knee injury, and the case was closed in February 1998 after the last benefit payment in May 1997. Following a non-work-related reinjury in July 2009, the claimant sought a reopening of the 1996 case, prompting the employer's carrier to request a liability shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed this shift. The Special Fund appealed, arguing the case was not truly closed due to a medical report anticipating future arthritic changes. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the case was indeed truly closed in 1998 as no further proceedings or payments were contemplated.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftCase ReopeningWork-Related InjuryKnee InjuryMedical PermanencyAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSection 25-a
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

Claim of Cook v. Staffing

Claimant sustained back and facial injuries in a 1994 work accident, leading to a 1997 award for facial disfigurement, no lost time, and continued back treatment, then case closure. In 2000, the case reopened to address medical reports and potential benefits, but was subsequently ruled resolved and "not truly closed" by a WCLJ, preventing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a liability shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. In 2004, claimant sought lost time compensation, and the Workers’ Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's decision, finding the case was indeed closed in 2000, thereby meeting the requirements for § 25-a liability to shift. The Special Fund appealed this determination, arguing the case was not truly closed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of true closure in 2000 was supported by evidence showing all pending issues had been resolved and no further proceedings were contemplated at that time.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial Fund LiabilityCase Reopening CriteriaWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aPermanent Facial DisfigurementLost Time BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Court AffirmationDate of Case ClosureMedical Treatment Coverage
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 16,569 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