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

Ms. B. v. Mr. K.

Mr. K. filed a petition seeking a downward modification of child support after losing his job at IBM and taking a lower-paying position. Hearing Examiner Brinnier denied the modification, finding Mr. K. failed to prove his income reduction was involuntary. Mr. K. objected, arguing his departure from IBM under an 'individual transition option' was reasonable given his declining performance and the company's downsizing. The court reviewed the objections and determined that Mr. K.'s decision to leave IBM was reasonable under the circumstances. The court found that the prior support order of $131 per week should continue during the period covered by Mr. K.'s IBM lump-sum buyout. The case is remanded to the Hearing Examiner to ascertain Mr. K.'s income from Fitness Unlimited and to chart the fluctuations in the support order.

Child Support ModificationDownward ModificationVoluntary TerminationInvoluntary TerminationChild Support Standards ActFamily Court ActLump-Sum PaymentIncome CalculationFinancial AffidavitEmployment Change
References
0
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1990

Abuso v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

Scott P. Abuso, an employee of Tee’s Recycling (a business formed by Mr. T Carting), was injured when he fell from and was hit by a garbage truck owned by Thomas Toscano, a partner in Mr. T Carting. After accepting Workers’ Compensation benefits through Tee’s Recycling, Abuso commenced an action against Joseph Russo (the truck driver and employee of Mr. T Carting) and the Toscano partners (doing business as Mr. T Carting) to recover damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) precluded recovery. The Supreme Court granted their motion, finding a special employment relationship existed between Abuso and Mr. T Carting. The appellate court affirmed the decision, agreeing that the evidence strongly supported the existence of a special employment relationship, making it a matter of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial Employment RelationshipExclusive Remedy ProvisionAppellate ReviewGarbage Truck AccidentPartnership LiabilityEmployer ImmunityTort LawJudicial Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cyr v. Bero Construction Corp.

The case concerned an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a truck driver, Mr. Cyr, who died in 1975 from an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. The Board had affirmed that the aneurysm and its rupture were causally related to an industrial accident Mr. Cyr suffered in 1965. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the medical opinion supporting causal relation, specifically from Dr. Rizzuto, lacked sufficient certainty. The court, referencing legal precedents like Matott v Ward, clarified that expert medical testimony must signify a probability supported by a rational basis, not necessarily 'reasonable medical certainty.' Upon reviewing Dr. Rizzuto's testimony, the court found it met this standard, confirming the causal relationship, and thus affirmed the Board's decisions.

Aortic AneurysmCausal RelationIndustrial AccidentDeath Benefits ClaimExpert Medical TestimonyMedical Certainty StandardWorkers' Compensation AppealsProbative ForceMedical Opinion ProbabilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06831 [188 AD3d 1429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Matter of Griego v. Mr Bult's, Inc.

Robert Griego, a truck driver, sustained work-related injuries in September 2013, leading to an established workers' compensation claim. The employer and its carrier later alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence. The carrier sought review by the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application was denied because it failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), specifically by not completely filling out the required form RB-89. The carrier then appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department, arguing that the Board should have addressed the merits of its application despite the procedural deficiency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board has the authority to enforce reasonable rules for review applications and found that the carrier's application was indeed incomplete for failing to specify the required objection to the WCLJ's ruling.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative RulesBoard Review ApplicationForm RB-89Procedural ComplianceFailure to Specify ObjectionsWCLJ DecisionWorkers' Compensation BoardThird Department
References
12
Case No. ADJ12427109
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

RICHARD ADAMS vs. MR. PLASTICS, INC., EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's right hand. The applicant claimed a fracture occurred while operating a machine, though medical records initially focused on a non-industrial injury from a ladder. Crucially, a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) opined the fracture was consistent with the applicant's described work mechanism. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning which prioritized the QME's opinion and medical records documenting the fracture prior to termination, over the defendant's arguments regarding proof of injury and temporary disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityMachine OperatorRight Hand InjuryScaphoid FractureAOE/COEContemporaneous Medical RecordsQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dr. Roland
References
0
Case No. ADJ10204439
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

JEFF SMITH vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Deputy Sheriff Jeff Smith's injury, sustained en route to mandatory employer-ordered training, fell under the "special mission" exception to the "going and coming rule." The training's deviation in location, time, and nature from Smith's regular duties satisfied the three-part test for a special mission. Therefore, Smith's injury was deemed to have arisen out of and occurred in the course of employment.

going and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial errand exceptionDeputy Sherifftraffic investigation classBen Clark Training Centermotor vehicle accidentcourse of employmentroutine dutiesemployer's benefit
References
10
Case No. 535424
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Theresa Polonski (Polonski, Jeff (dec'd))

Theresa Polonski filed a claim for death benefits for her husband, a highway maintenance crew leader, who died shortly after returning to strenuous work post-surgery. Despite his request for lighter duties, he was tasked with demolition and snow clearing, leading to fatigue and chest pains, culminating in his death from cardiovascular disease and Oxycodone intoxication according to an autopsy. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the death causally-related to employment, a decision affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Division found sufficient medical evidence from the claimant's expert linking the arduous work activities to a fatal ventricular arrhythmia, supporting the Board's decision despite pre-existing conditions and conflicting expert opinions.

Workers' CompensationCausationDeath BenefitsEmployment-Related DeathCardiovascular DiseaseSpinal FusionExertionPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nathan M. v. Catholic Guardian Society

The petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. M., applied to the court for the return of their four children from the Bureau of Child Welfare and Catholic Guardian Society. The children were placed in foster care in 1968 due to the parents' inability to care for them. Evidence, including psychiatric evaluations by Dr. John Abbott, revealed Mrs. M.'s mental health history and both parents' incapacity to meet their children's needs. Three children have significant developmental or mental health challenges, with adoption plans in place. Citing Social Services Law § 392 and prioritizing the children's best interests, the court found the parents unfit to assume parental functions. Consequently, the application for custody was dismissed.

Child CustodyParental UnfitnessFoster Care ReviewBest Interests of the ChildSocial Services LawMental Health IssuesChild WelfareAdoption ProceedingsPsychological ParentFamily Court
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 244 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