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
Aug 26, 2009

Claim of Hester v. Homemakers Upstate Group

In 2006, the claimant sustained compensable right hip and back injuries as a home health aide, resulting in a permanent partial disability. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant attached to the labor market, but the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed this determination, ruling that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn. The court affirmed the Board's decision on appeal, emphasizing the claimant's obligation to demonstrate attachment to the labor market by actively seeking employment within medical restrictions after a permanent partial disability finding. The claimant admitted to not having searched for work since the injury and had no future plans to do so. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalMedical RestrictionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaimant ObligationsEmployment SearchHome Health Aide
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp.

Claimant, aged 62, sustained a work-related back injury in February 1999, prompting his retirement the following day and the commencement of social security retirement benefits. Although he had planned to work part-time until age 65, he did not seek any employment post-injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to seek alternative work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, despite being deemed permanently partially disabled. The employer and carrier's contention regarding the untimeliness of the appeal was rejected. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' CompensationAppeal timelinessMedical evidenceConflicting evidenceSocial security benefitsRetirementBack injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lombardo v. Ford Motor Co.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1996, eventually stopping work despite available light duty and later retiring. The employer argued that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, thus forfeiting benefits. The Board found that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported a connection between the claimant's disability and his retirement, making his withdrawal involuntary. The court also noted that the employer's argument regarding the claimant's post-retirement job-seeking efforts was not preserved for review.

Workers' CompensationLabor MarketVoluntary WithdrawalDisabilityRetirementLight DutyBack InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singletary v. Meloon Foundries

The claimant, a foundry molder, injured his shoulder and lower back at work and received workers' compensation benefits. After his retirement, the employer's workers' compensation carrier sought to suspend his benefits, alleging voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for making false statements. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in the claimant's favor, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, rescinding all awards post-retirement. This appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported both the claimant's voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and his violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketFalse StatementsDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRetirementFraudWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aShoulder Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

Claim of Amicola v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, an employee of New York Telephone, sustained a low back injury in December 1992 and underwent disc repair surgery. After returning to light duty, he experienced increased back pain, and despite his physician's direction to stop working, he applied for an early retirement incentive program in May 1994, which was granted the following month. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market due to his early retirement. The Court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support that the claimant elected to retire, influenced by a significant financial incentive, despite his injury. The decision emphasized that the availability of workers' compensation benefits would not cease with retirement, further supporting the voluntary nature of his withdrawal.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementDisabilityBack InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFinancial Incentive
References
5
Case No. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clohesy v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Claimant, a utility company employee, filed three workers’ compensation claims between 1979 and 1997 for back/neck injuries and asbestosis. He resigned in December 1999, which the employer contended was a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the retirement voluntary. Claimant appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division found the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, noting the claimant had legitimate medical ailments interfering with his duties, and the Board unduly emphasized the lack of explicit medical advice to retire. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary withdrawal from labor marketWorkers' Compensation benefitsPermanent partial disabilityAsbestosis diagnosisMotor vehicle accident claimsMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate reviewRemittalDisability contributing to retirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Flannery v. Nassau County Police Department

Claimant, a Nassau County police officer, sustained a compensable back injury in June 2000. After returning to light-duty work, he retired in November 2000. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, denying him benefits. On appeal, the court found that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that claimant's disability caused or contributed to his retirement, thus his withdrawal was not voluntary. The Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketDisability RetirementLight Duty AssignmentMedical OpinionSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board AppealCausation of RetirementBack InjuryPolice Officer InjuryRemittal for Further Proceedings
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,118 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