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
Oct 08, 2002

McAllister v. McAllister

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, entered on October 8, 2002. The judgment had previously dissolved the marriage, ordered the defendant to pay maintenance, and awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed the awards of maintenance and counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the court modified the distributive award, agreeing with the defendant that the plaintiff's share of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence should be reduced. This adjustment was made because the trial court erroneously awarded the plaintiff the entire workers' compensation settlement instead of only the amount actually contributed as separate property towards the marital residence repair, resulting in a $1,739.78 reduction in the plaintiff's share.

Matrimonial lawMarital residenceDistributive awardWorkers' compensation settlementMaintenanceCounsel feesProperty divisionSpousal supportJudicial discretionAppellate review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2002

Claim of Palma v. New York City Department of Corrections

The claimant, a Vietnam veteran and former correction officer, sustained injuries in 1975 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. His case was later reopened to address consequential posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board attributed his PTSD to his Vietnam service, not his employment assault. Claimant's subsequent application for a rehearing and/or reopening of the claim, based on new psychiatric reports from 1999 and 2000, was denied by the Board on January 8, 2002. The Board concluded that the claimant failed to demonstrate the medical evidence was unavailable earlier or indicated a change in his psychiatric condition. This appeal challenged the Board's denial of the rehearing application, rather than the underlying PTSD claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial of the application.

Workers' CompensationAppealRehearingReopening ClaimPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Correction OfficerVietnam VeteranMedical EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. ADJ10755627 ADJ9735622
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

ANTHONY KOUTRIS vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration of an award granting temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to applicant Anthony Koutris. The defendant challenged the TTD period from February 8, 2017, to March 9, 2017, arguing it lacked sufficient medical evidence. The Board adopted the judge's report, finding that applicant's testimony and a doctor's report constituted substantial evidence of TTD during that period. A dissenting opinion argued that medical evidence was lacking for the February 8 to March 8, 2017 period, suggesting TTD should have commenced on March 9, 2017.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardlegally uninsuredModified Findings and Awardtemporary total disabilitysubstantial credible medical evidencePetition for ReconsiderationApplicant's testimonyDr. Pelton's reportdissenting opinionconcurrent scientific medical evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. ADJ461872 (MON 0305024)
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

## ANTHONY MEYN, vs. ## LACMTA; Permissibly Self-Insured, As Administered By LACMA; TRAVELERS INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Board denied Travelers Insurance's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury as a bus driver ending June 8, 2002. Travelers argued the date of injury should have been July 16, 1998, when the applicant was diagnosed with hypertension, asserting the applicant knew his condition was work-related at that time. However, the Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant knew or should have known in 1998 that his disability was caused by his employment. Therefore, liability was correctly apportioned to the employer for the period ending June 8, 2002, when the applicant's injurious exposure concluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAnthony MeynLACMTATravelers Insurancecumulative traumabilateral wristslumbar spinehypertensionheartpermanent disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Belfiore v. University of Rochester

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant initially suffered right wrist de Quervain's disease and left wrist tenosynovitis in 1982 while employed at the University of Rochester. A second claim in 1999, during employment at IMPCO, established bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, apportioned between the two injuries. In September 2000, the claimant sustained a right trigger thumb injury and sought to include it in her existing workers' compensation cases. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no causal relationship between the trigger thumb and prior occupational injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in March 2002 and amended in April 2002. The claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration was denied in December 2002, leading to an appeal that was ultimately dismissed as untimely, having been filed more than a year after the Board’s original decision and outside the 30-day window for appealing the denial of reconsideration.

Appeal DismissalUntimely AppealWorkers Compensation BoardOccupational InjuryDe Quervain’s DiseaseTenosynovitisCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTrigger ThumbCausal RelationshipSchedule Loss of Use
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nardolillo v. Sovinsky

Plaintiffs, members of the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Helpers Subordinate Union No. 8, sought to recover funds contributed by their employer to a trust fund. They argued that the discontinuation of employer contributions rendered them ineligible for benefits, making the trust's purpose impossible and leading to unjust enrichment by the fund. Defendants countered that such payments would violate the trust agreement and IRS provisions, maintaining that plaintiffs remained eligible. The court determined that the fund was a common trust, not individual escrowed accounts, and upheld the trustees' interpretation that ensured plaintiffs' continued eligibility, preventing a forfeiture of rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Union Trust FundEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsTrust AgreementBenefit EligibilityFund AdministrationBreach of TrustFiduciary DutyDismissal MotionLabor-Management Relations Act
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,759 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