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

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. ADJ7765356
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

WESLEY CAIN vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Metropolitan Authority's petition for reconsideration. The Authority sought to alter a prior stipulation that awarded applicant Wesley Cain medical treatment for an admitted industrial injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the stipulation was a binding agreement. The WCJ determined the language of the stipulation clearly provided for ongoing medical care and the Authority provided no evidence to alter this entitlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeStipulation and Request for AwardMedical treatmentIndustrial injuryMetro train driverSuicide attemptContract principlesBinding agreement
References
1
Case No. ADJ7436407, ADJ1895040 (FRE 0238028)
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

Colleen Newby vs. Fresno Community Medical Center, St. Agnes Medical Center, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Colleen Newby's Petition for Removal, upholding the denial of her petition to quash a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) request. The Board found that the prior employer, Fresno Community Medical Center, was authorized to file an application for adjudication of claim for Newby's subsequent employment with St. Agnes Medical Center. Crucially, the Board determined that a claim form is not a prerequisite for St. Agnes to request a QME panel in this specific scenario, where a second injury is claimed by a prior employer. Newby's due process claim was rejected as she had an opportunity to present her arguments on removal.

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashQME RequestQualified Medical EvaluatorClaim FormDue ProcessAgreed Medical EvaluatorApplication for AdjudicationTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,627 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