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. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. 5674395Z
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2011

Baines v. Berlin

Mashon Baines, a homeless and disabled mother of three, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance's August 31, 2011 decision to discontinue her temporary housing assistance. This decision stemmed from an alleged altercation with a shelter director, Marilyn Gonzalez, during a fire drill, leading to Baines's arrest. Baines argued that her due process rights were violated because the discontinuance notice cited only the assault on Ms. Gonzalez, while the administrative decision was based on multiple uncharged wrongdoings and failed to adequately consider video evidence. The court found that respondents failed to adequately apprise Baines of all charges, thereby violating her due process rights, and consequently annulled the August 31, 2011 fair hearing decision. The court also granted Baines's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.

Due ProcessAdministrative HearingHomeless AssistanceShelter BenefitsDiscontinuance of BenefitsNotice RequirementsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAttorneys' FeesSelf-Incrimination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. ADJ394938 (OAK 0328377)
Regular
Dec 16, 2015

LONDON MORROW vs. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a right shoulder injury in 2003 and was awarded temporary disability indemnity for a new period of disability in 2015. The defendant challenged this award, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant temporary disability more than five years after the injury date, as the applicant had not been continuously disabled. The majority of the Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that Labor Code section 4656 and prior case law preclude jurisdiction for a new temporary disability period initiated more than five years post-injury, especially when disability was not continuous.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityDate of InjuryJurisdictionLabor Code Section 4656Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Continuous DisabilityNew Period of Temporary DisabilityPermanent and Stationary
References
1
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schapiro v. New York City Department of Health

Plaintiff David B. Schapiro sued his former employers, the City of New York and its agency, the New York City Department of Health, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a common law negligence claim. Schapiro claimed he developed respiratory problems from poor workplace conditions between 1989 and 1994, arguing the City failed to provide reasonable accommodation. The City moved for summary judgment, contending Schapiro was not disabled under the ADA, his claims were time-barred, and he failed to mitigate damages, also asserting his negligence claim was preempted by New York's Worker's Compensation Law. The court granted the City's motion, ruling that several of Schapiro's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability under the ADA as his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity like breathing or working. Furthermore, the court found Schapiro's negligence claim was exclusively covered by the New York Worker's Compensation Law.

Disability DiscriminationADASummary JudgmentRespiratory ProblemsWorkplace ConditionsReasonable AccommodationTime BarEEOCNegligence ClaimWorker's Compensation Law
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Case No. ADJ4463692 (STK 0134961) ADJ2984651 (STK 0142920)
Regular
Jan 13, 2010

WILLIAM MART vs. CALAVERAS COUNTY; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT, In Liquidation

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award of temporary disability benefits dating back to 2001. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and deferred the issues of temporary disability and attorney fees. This action was based on precedent holding that jurisdiction to award temporary disability beyond the five-year limit exists if a timely petition to reopen for new and further disability was filed and the disability arose within that five-year period. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and clarification regarding specific periods of temporary disability, considering Labor Code section 4656(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5803Labor Code Section 5804Sarabi v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Independent Medical Examiner (IME)
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01108 [158 AD3d 965]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Matter of Williams v. New York State Off. of Temporary Disability & Assistance

Claimant, Theresa J. Williams, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. She alleged an elevator door struck her, causing sprains and contusions. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding she exaggerated the incident and her injuries did not arise from employment, based significantly on video surveillance that contradicted her account. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve factual issues and assess witness credibility. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no medical opinion establishing causation based on the incident as depicted in the video.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCredibility AssessmentVideo Surveillance EvidenceElevator IncidentClaim DisallowanceBoard Decision AffirmationFactual Issue ResolutionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15,685 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