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

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Bar Ass'n v. Reno

The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) sought to prevent the Attorney General of the United States from enforcing a section of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, incorporated into the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This section criminalizes counseling or assisting individuals in disposing of assets to qualify for Medicaid if such disposal leads to ineligibility, which the NYSBA argued violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Despite the Attorney General's assurance of non-enforcement, the NYSBA claimed irreparable harm due to the chilling effect on its members' free speech rights. The court found that the NYSBA had standing and that its members faced irreparable injury from potential self-censorship. As the government did not contest the unconstitutionality of the provision, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

First AmendmentFifth AmendmentMedicaid EligibilityAsset DisposalPreliminary InjunctionRipeness DoctrineAssociational StandingChilling EffectFree SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. ADJ7463348
Regular
Jan 20, 2012

Olga Garau vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, adjusting agency

Applicant Olga Garau petitioned for removal of her case, alleging that assigned workers' compensation judges (WCJs) could not lawfully act as they were not active members of the California Bar. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report and recommendation. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 123.5 requires WCJs to be licensed attorneys and maintain State Bar membership, which includes inactive members. Therefore, the applicant's allegations regarding the judges' qualifications were unsubstantiated, and the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ RecusalLabor Code Section 123.5State Bar MembershipActive vs. Inactive MemberBusiness and Professions Code Section 6003WCAB Rule 10848Report and RecommendationExpedited Trial
References
0
Case No. No. 78 Civ. 2541-CSH
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1987

Hannahs v. NY STATE TEACHERS'RET. SYSTEM

Plaintiff Bessie Hannahs, a retired teacher, challenged the use of sex-differentiated actuarial tables by the New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS) to calculate retirement benefits, alleging discrimination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, citing intervening Supreme Court authority in Norris and subsequent Second Circuit rulings in Spirt II. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Norris precluded retroactive relief due to the financial burden on the guaranteed annuity plan. The court also determined that NYSTRS's post-Norris implementation, which involved using merged gender mortality tables ("midpointing") for contributions made after August 1, 1983, complied with federal law, rejecting the plaintiff's argument for "topping up" benefits and any state law considerations that would mandate it.

Retirement BenefitsActuarial TablesGender DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentProspective ReliefRetroactive ReliefMidpointingTopping UpPension Plans
References
10
Case No. 93 Civ. 7146(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORG. FOR WOMEN v. Pataki

This case addresses several post-appeal motions in a class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs sought curative notice relief related to a permanent injunction against the New York State Division of Human Rights' 1995 Intake Rules. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss the entire action, arguing a prior Second Circuit ruling vacated all relief. Plaintiff Class-Member Abby Oshinsky moved to reinstate her discrimination claims, and the New York City Housing Authority moved to intervene. The court denied defendants' cross-motion, affirming the injunction against the 1995 Intake Rules was not appealed and thus survived. However, plaintiffs' motion for curative notice relief and Oshinsky's motion were denied, with the latter rendering the NYCHA's intervention motion moot.

Due ProcessClass ActionPermanent InjunctionAdministrative PracticesDivision of Human RightsProcedural Due ProcessEqual ProtectionDiscrimination ClaimsJudicial ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antoinetta Corp. v. State

Claimant sought damages for personal injuries sustained on July 22, 1992, during the Empire State Games at the State University of New York at Albany. As a volunteer security force member, she fell into an unmarked steeplechase pit after the lights were turned off, severing her Achilles tendon. The State moved to dismiss, asserting workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy. The Court of Claims granted dismissal, finding claimant failed to plead the unavailability of workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board is the proper forum for determining whether an individual qualifies as an employee entitled to benefits.

Personal InjuryVolunteer WorkerExclusive RemedyMotion to DismissCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewAchilles Tendon InjuryPremises LiabilityState LiabilityEmpire State Games
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

Brown v. State

A claimant, formerly a supervisor, initiated legal action against the State of New York and four individual state employees, asserting claims under the State Human Rights Law and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimant alleged persistent verbal and sexual harassment by a co-worker, Albert Morelli, and further contended that supervisors failed to intervene, leading to her alleged retaliatory "constructive termination" in October 1983. The Court of Claims dismissed the actions against the individual employees and the emotional distress claim but permitted the Human Rights Law cause of action, rejecting the State's defenses based on the Statute of Limitations and election of remedies. On cross appeals, the higher court affirmed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, citing public policy against such suits for official conduct, and upheld the finding that the Human Rights Law claim was not time-barred or precluded by election of remedies.

Sexual harassmentVerbal harassmentRetaliationHuman Rights LawIntentional infliction of emotional distressConstructive terminationStatute of LimitationsElection of remediesRespondeat superiorPublic policy defense
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bounds v. State

The case involves an appeal concerning a claimant injured while participating in the Work Experience Program (WEP) at Cayuga Lake State Park, subsequently suing the State of New York under Labor Law § 240 (1). The initial Court of Claims decision granted partial summary judgment to the claimant. However, the appellate court determined that while the claimant was an employee of Seneca County, a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether he was also a 'special employee' of the State of New York. This 'special employee' status is crucial as it could invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, thereby barring his claim. Consequently, the appellate court modified the judgment by denying both the claimant's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming the judgment as modified.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic AssistanceWork Experience ProgramEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,961 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