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
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. ADJ3817836 (SJO 0250881)
Regular
May 31, 2012

ZUFAN A. REDA vs. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns applicant Zufan A. Reda's claim for permanent total disability due to a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering the development of the record because neither the applicant's QME, Dr. Sidle, nor the defendant's QME, Dr. Keins, provided substantial evidence regarding the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB found that Dr. Sidle's report incorrectly addressed causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability, and Dr. Keins' report was rejected as non-substantial due to prior rulings on industrial causation. Therefore, the WCAB has appointed Dr. Roy Curry as a "regular physician" to conduct a new evaluation on the issue of psychiatric permanent disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationDevelopment of RecordLabor Code section 5701Industrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceSection 5803Section 5804Section 5410Permanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, comprising local condominium boards, tenants, and residents, challenged the New York State Urban Development Corporation's (UDC) determination to acquire a lot for a homeless housing facility. They argued that UDC exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, its findings were defective, the project's funding was illegal, and its use of override powers was improper. The court affirmed UDC's determination, concluding that its actions were within its statutory authority, its findings were well-supported by the record, and the funding and override powers were appropriately exercised. Additionally, the court reviewed and upheld the Housing Finance Agency's (HFA) negative environmental declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court also dismissed claims of unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, referencing established precedents.

CondemnationEminent DomainUrban DevelopmentHomeless HousingSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewStatutory JurisdictionOverride PowersPublic PurposeBlighted Areas
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Case No. 18087/81
Regular Panel Decision

Orbach v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, including Mets Parking Incorporated and individual property owners doing business as Three-0 Realty Company, initiated a CPLR 7803 proceeding against the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC). They sought to compel UDC to comply with the Urban Development Corporation Act (UDCA) regarding a multi-million dollar 42nd Street Development Land Use Project in Manhattan. Petitioners alleged that a public hearing held by UDC on August 3, 1981, was insufficient because no UDC directors or authorized agents were present to listen or respond to public comments, thereby denying their procedural rights. The court found that UDC improperly delegated its power by appointing a hearing officer whose functions were limited to recording and transmitting comments without authority to hear and respond on behalf of UDC, thus denying petitioners a full and fair public hearing. Consequently, the court granted petitioners' motion to the extent of directing UDC to promptly hold another public hearing in full compliance with section 16 of the UDCA.

Public hearingUrban Development Corporation ActCPLR Article 78Administrative procedureDelegation of authorityDue processCommunity engagementReal estate developmentNew York StateJudicial review
References
5
Case No. ADJ9244473
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

LILIA TAMAYO vs. SERRA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, COMPWEST INSURANCE

This case involves Lilia Tamayo's workers' compensation claim against Serra Manufacturing Corporation. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated a trial submission to develop the medical record, specifically ordering panels of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). The defendant sought removal, arguing this was an inappropriate method for record development. The Appeals Board denied removal, agreeing with the WCJ that the record needed development but finding the ordered method of seeking supplemental opinions from the treating physician inappropriate based on prior precedent. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order for further development, though it did not specify the exact procedure pending further action.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionOrder for Further DevelopmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Orthopedic SurgeryPsychiatryIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryTrunk InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,874 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