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 Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co.

This Per Curiam decision addresses appeals concerning whether employers and their carriers are entitled to credit for lump-sum settlements in reopened workers' compensation cases. The cases of Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co. and Yurivich v. Sans Souci Nursing Home both involve claimants who received lump-sum awards for partial disabilities but later experienced worsening conditions, leading to reopened cases and increased awards. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied credit to the carriers for the original lump-sum settlements, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court held that lump-sum settlements under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(5-b) cannot be indefinitely extended by excluding weeks where the claimant earned pre-injury wages. It affirmed that carriers assume the risk of reopened cases due to changed conditions, with no statutory or decisional basis for adjusting for claimant earnings during the period the lump-sum award covered.

Lump-sum settlementWorkmen's Compensation Law § 15(5-b)Credit for settlementReopened caseIncreased disabilityPost-disability earningsPre-disability earningsNonschedule adjustmentCaisson diseaseHerniated disc
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cordell v. City of Oneida Youth Division

This workers' compensation case involved a claimant who, following a lump-sum settlement in 1983 for a 1980 back injury, sought to reopen the claim and receive payment for a CAT scan due to a change in medical condition. Although the case was inadvertently reopened and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially ordered the carrier to resume medical payments, the Board reversed this decision, asserting the lump-sum settlement barred further benefits without proper reopening. The central issue revolved around whether medical expenses are encompassed within the term 'compensation' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (5-b), which governs comprehensive lump-sum settlements. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that a lump-sum settlement under § 15 (5-b) generally forecloses additional medical expenses unless the case is properly reopened due to uncontemplated changes in the claimant's medical condition, a stance supported by legislative intent and precedent.

Lump-Sum SettlementMedical ExpensesPermanent Partial DisabilityReopening ClaimStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(5-b)Workers' Compensation Law § 13Carrier LiabilityBoard DecisionCausally Related Medical Expenses
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalczyk v. Flintkote Co.

Stanley Kowalczyk, an employee of The Flintkote Company, filed a declaratory judgment action to interpret a noncontributory employees’ pension plan agreement. Kowalczyk sustained a serious injury and received a lump-sum workmen's compensation settlement, after which he applied for monthly retirement benefits. Flintkote denied these benefits, arguing that the pension plan's deduction clause for 'annuity, pension or payment of similar kind' included the lump-sum settlement. Kowalczyk contended the clause was ambiguous and did not apply to his settlement. The court concluded that a lump-sum workmen's compensation settlement was not contemplated by the agreement to reduce an employee’s monthly retirement benefit, granting summary judgment in favor of Kowalczyk.

Pension PlanEmployee BenefitsWorkmen's CompensationLump-sum SettlementContract InterpretationAmbiguity in ContractSummary JudgmentRetirement BenefitsWage LossCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Holiday Showcase Restaurants, Inc.

Claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1995, later including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). Indemnity benefits were settled in 2002 with a $27,000 lump-sum payment, with the employer's carrier retaining liability for medical treatment. In 2005, the carrier sought to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this, ruling that the three-year lapse period from the last compensation payment had not passed, as the lump-sum settlement was allocated to extend benefits until December 31, 2008, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (7). This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the carrier's argument that § 25-a (7) applies only to nonschedule adjustment settlements and found no basis to disturb the Board's conclusion.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLump Sum SettlementMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsReflex Sympathetic DystrophyStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giuffre v. South General Swiss International Co.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury and received a lump-sum nonschedule adjustment, after which her case was closed. She subsequently submitted a bill for medical treatment, but the workers' compensation carrier objected. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the lump-sum settlement barred further benefit payments and found the carrier not liable, as there was no established change in the claimant's condition or degree of disability to justify reopening the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, without costs.

Lump-sum settlementMedical benefitsClaim reopeningBoard decisionAppellate reviewDisabilityCarrier liabilityCompensable injuryNonschedule adjustmentFurther benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1993

Claim of Dukes v. Capitol Formation, Inc.

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident in 1971 while on a business trip, resulting in a compensable injury. Over the next two decades, numerous hearings were held regarding medical bill payments and related compensation issues. The parties eventually entered into a stipulated settlement, which included a $75,000 lump-sum payment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-b). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claimant’s request to set aside this stipulation, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied by the Board. The appeals court dismissed the appeal of the Board’s June 7, 1993 decision as untimely, and affirmed the Board’s August 19, 1993 decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationStipulated SettlementLump-Sum SettlementReconsiderationUntimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudCollusionMistakeTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Claim of Bunnell v. Sangerfield Inn

Claimant, after sustaining work-related back injuries in February 1992 and receiving an $85,000 lump-sum settlement in 1998, sought to reopen his workers' compensation claim in May 2002. He cited worsened medical symptoms, an increased degree of disability, and requested to include a groin condition and consequential depression in his covered injuries. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied his application, ruling that the medical evidence failed to demonstrate an unanticipated change in his medical condition or degree of disability that was not contemplated at the time of the initial lump-sum adjustment. The Board's decision, which involved resolving conflicting medical evidence and concluded there was no unanticipated change, was subsequently affirmed on appeal, as it was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump-sum SettlementClaim ReopeningMedical ConditionDisability AssessmentBack InjuryDepressionDegenerative Disc DiseaseSubstantial EvidenceBoard Discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2007

Ashley v. Worsell

This case concerns an appeal regarding child support modification and counsel fees. The mother sought increased child support from the father due to his $100,000 workers' compensation settlement. The Family Court affirmed a Support Magistrate's decision to count the settlement as income for child support, ordering the father to pay a lump sum. However, the appellate court modified the order by vacating the award of counsel fees to the mother, finding a lack of factual basis for their reasonableness. The court upheld the inclusion of the workers' compensation settlement as income for child support, even the portion earmarked for future medical expenses, as the father spent the funds on non-medical items.

Child supportWorkers' compensation settlementIncome calculationCounsel feesFamily CourtAppealLump-sum paymentParental obligationTompkins CountySupport order modification
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,778 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