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 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Porter v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

The claimant, who sustained head, neck, and back injuries in 2004, had a workers' compensation case established for occupational disease, with 22.5% liability for neck and back injuries apportioned to the incident. After experiencing continued back problems and being diagnosed with severe biforaminal stenosis, the Chair authorized an MRI in 2010 and lumbar spine surgery in 2011. The workers’ compensation carrier sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, a request initially denied by a WCLJ but granted by the Board, which found the April 27, 2011 order authorizing surgery constituted a 'true closing' of the case. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the transfer of liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the case was truly closed, thereby shifting liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftClosed CaseTrue ClosingMedical AuthorizationLumbar Spine SurgeryCervical Spine MRIOccupational DiseaseApportionment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neal v. Blue Circle Cement

The claimant, a laborer, suffered a compensable back injury in November 1998 and returned to work after eight months. In January 2002, he sustained another back injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that the January 2002 injury was an aggravation of the prior 1998 injury, assigned disability levels from January 2002 to April 2003, and found no compensable lost time thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence, including medical testimony and MRI comparisons, to support the Board’s determination regarding the aggravation of the injury and the disability levels. The court also upheld the Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical evidence and make credibility determinations, particularly in light of evidence that the claimant exaggerated his symptoms.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravation of InjuryDisability LevelsMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Fave v. St. Lawrence County

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in October 1992. Years later, in November 1996, he was diagnosed with sciatica and a herniated disc, leading to surgery in March 1997. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his back condition was causally related to the 1992 injury. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting medical evidence supporting the causal relationship from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner, despite the employer's consultant expressing doubts. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the employer's request for further record development due to untimeliness.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealAffirmationTimelinessRecord Development
References
4
Case No. ADJ11130965
Regular
Jan 15, 2020

SUSAN ADAMS vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to her neck, upper extremities, or back. This decision relied heavily on the WCJ's credibility determination of the applicant. While a PQME opined that work activities likely caused a lumbar spine cumulative trauma, the Board found this opinion lacked substantiality. The PQME's report failed to adequately explain how work activities accelerated or aggravated the applicant's numerous pre-existing back conditions and prior injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative TraumaCredibility DeterminationQualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedicsLumbar SpinePreexisting ConditionIndustrial InjurySubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reddien v. Joseph Davis Inc.

Claimant suffered work-related injuries to his back and left wrist in July 1999, with a schedule loss of use of his left hand determined in 2001. In 2011, claimant sought treatment for lumbar radiculopathy. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier filed a request to transfer liability for the claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the transfer, ruling the case was never truly closed because the issue of permanency for the back injury had not been addressed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the case was not truly closed and thus Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a was inapplicable.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseLumbar RadiculopathyPermanent Partial DisabilityBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCausally Related InjuryMedical Opinion
References
5
Case No. ADJ11053430; ADJ14397522
Regular
Jun 23, 2025

MICHAEL FISHEL vs. RICK'S LUBE AND COMPLETE AUTO, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Michael Fishel, an auto mechanic, sustained an injury to his back and other body parts on August 18, 2017, while employed by Rick's Lube and Complete Auto, insured by Oak River Insurance Company. The case involved extensive litigation concerning the necessity of lumbar spine surgery and the waiver of the Utilization Review/Independent Medical Review process, leading to the appointment of Dr. Laura Hatch. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding and substituting a prior Findings and Award. The Board's decision clarified Dr. Hatch's appointment date and the scope of her evaluation, ultimately upholding the award for the applicant's lumbar spine surgery based on Dr. Hatch's medical opinions.

AOE/COEUR/IMRRegular PhysicianStipulationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5701Lumbar Spine SurgeryQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating Physician
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. Hillcrest Heating

In October 1980, the claimant sustained lower back injuries in a work-related automobile accident and received workers’ compensation benefits. In 1986, he reinjured his back in a non-work-related incident, leading to a need for lumbar disc surgery. The claimant contended a causal relationship between the 1986 injury and the 1980 accident, prompting the Workers’ Compensation Board to reopen his case. Medical reports from the carrier’s physician and others supported the causal link, leading the carrier to authorize and fund the surgery. A dispute arose between the carrier’s no-fault and workers’ compensation divisions regarding liability, during which AVMA Group Health and Life Insurance Trust, the claimant’s private insurer, sought reimbursement for medical bills. The carrier’s representative agreed to an order directing reimbursement, which was issued by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. Despite this, the carrier sought administrative review, arguing prematurity due to an ongoing dispute over responsibility. The Board affirmed the order, and this appeal ensued. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing sufficient evidence from medical reports and the carrier's authorization of surgery and admission of responsibility.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesCausal RelationshipBack InjuryAutomobile AccidentReimbursementInsurance LiabilityNo-Fault BenefitsBoard AffirmationAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02252 [195 AD3d 40]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2021

Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put - Back Litig.

This case addresses contractual disputes arising from the pooling and securitization of residential mortgages (RMBS). Computershare Trust Company, National Association, acting as a Separate Securities Administrator, sued Natixis Real Estate Holdings LLC (and its predecessor) for breaching a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) by failing to identify and repurchase nonconforming mortgages. Natixis, in turn, filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Securities Administrator and Master Servicer), alleging Wells Fargo breached its PSA duties to notify of breaches and supervise the Servicer. The Appellate Division ruled that Natixis's statute of limitations defense, based on the borrowing statute (CPLR 202), was not waived, overturning the lower court's decision on this point. It affirmed the dismissal of Natixis's contractual indemnification claim against Wells Fargo but allowed Natixis's independent breach of contract claims (failure to notify and failure to supervise) against Wells Fargo to proceed.

RMBSPut-Back LitigationContractual ObligationsStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteLaw of the CaseWaiverIndemnificationBreach of ContractSecurities Administrator
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 2,424 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