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 Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leone v. Sheriff's Department

This case addresses whether a municipality, which has paid both salary and medical treatment costs to a police officer injured in the line of duty under General Municipal Law § 207-c, is entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment expenses from a schedule award received by the employee under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer, a self-insured municipality, deducted both wages and medical expenses from the claimant's schedule award. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision holding that the employer was not entitled to credit for medical payments from the schedule loss award. The court affirmed this decision, holding that medical expense payments made by a self-insured employer must be deemed Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 payments, for which the employer is not entitled to reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3). The court emphasized a liberal and harmonious interpretation of the relevant statutes to avoid disadvantaging police officers and firefighters.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersMedical ExpensesSchedule AwardReimbursementSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory InterpretationLine of Duty Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leone v. Oneida County Sheriff's Department

Claimant, a Deputy Sheriff employed by Oneida County Sheriffs Department, sustained a line-of-duty injury. He received full wages and medical expenses under General Municipal Law § 207-c. Additionally, he filed a claim with the State Workers’ Compensation Board and was awarded partial wage replacement benefits and a schedule award. The County, which was self-insured, received credit for wages paid but was denied credit for medical expenses against the schedule award. The County appealed, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3) authorized such a credit. Both the Appellate Division and this court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that granting a credit for medical expenses against a schedule award would not further the legislative purpose of preventing duplication of salary benefits and would lead to an anomalous disadvantage for employees.

Schedule AwardGeneral Municipal Law 207-cWorkers' Compensation Law 30(3)Medical Expense CreditTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityBenefit DuplicationSelf-Insured CountyDeputy Sheriff InjuryAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 17-CV-3136 (RRM)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Cognetta v. Bonavita

The trustees of the Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union Local 1-D Major Medical Plan sought a declaratory judgment to establish an equitable lien or constructive trust on any future recovery by defendants James and Nicole Bonavita from a state negligence action. The Plan had paid $110,000 in medical expenses for James Bonavita following a car accident. Defendants argued that New York General Obligation Law § 5-335 precluded reimbursement and that the action was premature. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that ERISA preempts Section 5-335 because the Plan is self-funded. The court found the declaratory judgment to be appropriate equitable relief, establishing an equitable lien over future settlement or judgment funds, compelling defendants to hold such proceeds in trust for the Plan's benefit.

ERISASelf-Funded PlanEquitable LienConstructive TrustSubrogationReimbursementDeclaratory JudgmentPreemptionNew York General Obligation LawMake-Whole Doctrine
References
55
Case No. ADJ683696 (OXN 0130382) ADJ2849597 (OXN 0135814) ADJ2954957 (OXN 0136101)
Regular
Nov 25, 2009

JORGE BARBOZA vs. MICROPULSE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GAB ROBINS for CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INS. CO., ANDREW CORPORATION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Defendant California Indemnity Insurance Company sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's award concerning liability apportionment among multiple insurers. The arbitrator had assigned specific percentages of responsibility to State Compensation Insurance Fund and Zurich for benefits paid. The defendant argued the arbitrator erred by disregarding medical evidence, ignoring liability percentages, and improperly inferring liability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that miscoded medical treatment expenses, erroneously labeled VRMA, should be considered as benefits paid for contribution purposes. The original award was otherwise affirmed with amendments clarifying what constitutes "moneys paid to and on behalf of the Applicant."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardContributionLiabilityMedical EvidenceVRMABenefits PaidMedical Treatment ExpensesTemporary Total Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polanco v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

Plaintiffs Pearl Polanco, Carol McCarthy, and Wilma Steel-Lopez, former employees of The Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, brought claims under the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging they were not paid for work performed during lunch breaks and after shifts. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the state claims were preempted and federal claims precluded by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, denied the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs' NYLL and FLSA claims assert independent statutory rights that are neither preempted nor precluded by the LMRA.

Wage DisputesOvertime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawLabor Management Relations ActPreemption DoctrineClaim PreclusionMotion to DismissEmployee RightsStatutory Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

This case addresses whether an employer's protection from third-party claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 is lost when its injured employees are undocumented aliens. Plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center sued defendant Microtech Contracting for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification, following a judgment paid to Microtech's injured undocumented employees, Luis and Gerardo Lema. The hospital argued that Microtech's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in hiring the Lemas should preclude it from invoking Section 11's shield. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division dismissed the hospital's claims, affirming that employee immigration status does not negate an employer's statutory rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the illegality of the employment contract under IRCA does not override the employer's protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, particularly as the hospital did not pursue conflict preemption on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Undocumented AliensThird-Party ClaimsContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryPreemptionLabor LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Edward Rechenberger suffered hip fractures and underwent two operations at Nassau County Medical Center in May 1982. Following a re-injury and later diagnosis, he learned the surgical hardware was improperly implanted, leading to further operations. Mr. Rechenberger sought leave to serve a late notice of claim against the medical center. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period through its own medical records. The court concluded that the delay in serving the notice of claim was not substantially prejudicial to the hospital, and thus, granted the petitioners leave to serve the late notice of claim.

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation
References
11
Case No. SFO 0444182 SFO 0470385
Regular
Nov 16, 2007

MARK CRUZ vs. WESTLAKE AUTO SERVICE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found the State Compensation Insurance Fund liable for 4% of pre-liquidation benefits paid by Reliance and 100% of post-liquidation benefits paid by CIGA. The Board clarified that "workers' compensation benefit payments" encompass temporary disability, permanent disability, and medical treatment but specifically exclude administrative costs such as medical management, copying, and bill review. Therefore, the State Fund is not obligated to reimburse CIGA for these administrative expenses.

CIGAReliance National Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance Fundcontributionpermanent disabilitymedical treatmentcumulative traumaspecific injurypre-liquidation paymentspost-liquidation payments
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,690 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