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

McLeod v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary restraining order against Local 25, a labor union, alleging unfair labor practices against Sarrow-Suburban Electric Co., Inc. and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. The charges, filed on September 14, 1964, claimed Local 25 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by attempting to force employers to assign work to its members. A preliminary investigation by the Board found reasonable cause to believe the charges were true, supporting the request for injunctive relief under Section 10(J) of the Act. Evidence showed Local 25 demanded Brunswick Hospital break its contract with Sarrow and assign work to its members, subsequently initiating a work stoppage through picketing. The Court found reasonable cause for the Director's belief and granted the temporary restraining order.

unfair labor practicetemporary restraining orderlabor disputeNational Labor Relations Actpicketingwork stoppagelabor unioninjunctionDistrict Courtcollective bargaining
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washburn v. Bob Hooey Construction Co.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant's entitlement to benefits. The claimant, who had received prior benefits for chest and left shoulder injuries, sought new benefits for neck and back injuries following a motor vehicle accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board denied the carrier's application to shift liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing that § 25-a should apply due to the time elapsed since the original injury and last payment. However, the court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the case had not been officially closed, thus making § 25-a inapplicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeCase ReopeningClosed Case DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaynard v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case addresses whether peaceful picketing, ostensibly to inform the public about substandard wages, can be enjoined as a secondary boycott or an inducement to strike in a jurisdictional dispute. The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary injunction against Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, alleging unfair labor practices after Local 25 picketed a job site where Unity Electric Co. was a subcontractor. Despite Local 25's claim that the picketing was solely informational, employees of other subcontractors refused to cross the picket lines, causing work stoppages. The court, considering Local 25's past actions and the totality of circumstances, found reasonable cause to believe that the picketing had an objective beyond mere public information, aiming to effect a secondary boycott and compel the assignment of electrical work to Local 25 members. Consequently, Local 25 was enjoined from further picketing at the Highland site pending final disposition by the Board.

Labor DisputeSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputePicketingTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesArea StandardsNational Labor Relations ActUnion ActivityConstruction Industry
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Strujan v. New York Hospital

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant's 1997 work-related injury. A claim for consequential psychiatric injuries was denied in 2010, and the employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. While a WCLJ initially granted this transfer, the Board reversed, concluding the case was not 'truly closed' due to unresolved issues, including the claimant's alleged migraines. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the case was not truly closed, thereby preventing the shift of liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesTrue ClosureLiability ShiftMigrainesPsychiatric InjuryConsequential InjuryBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andres v. Occidental Chemical

The case involves a claimant who filed for death benefits following a decedent's passing, attributed to asbestos exposure, after previous disability claims were closed for lack of medical evidence. The employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled § 25-a inapplicable, citing the inability to establish a date of disablement. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, concluding that the claim for death benefits was made within seven years of death, rendering paragraphs (1) and (2) of § 25-a (1) inapplicable. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of § 25-a (1) was also deemed inapplicable due to the lack of a discernable date of injury or disablement in the occupational disease context.

Asbestos exposureDeath benefitsWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial FundsDate of disablementDate of injurySeven-year ruleLiability shiftOccupational diseaseAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Holiday Showcase Restaurants, Inc.

Claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1995, later including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). Indemnity benefits were settled in 2002 with a $27,000 lump-sum payment, with the employer's carrier retaining liability for medical treatment. In 2005, the carrier sought to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this, ruling that the three-year lapse period from the last compensation payment had not passed, as the lump-sum settlement was allocated to extend benefits until December 31, 2008, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (7). This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the carrier's argument that § 25-a (7) applies only to nonschedule adjustment settlements and found no basis to disturb the Board's conclusion.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLump Sum SettlementMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsReflex Sympathetic DystrophyStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rathbun v. D'Ella Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc.

In February 1999, claimant experienced work-related wrist and elbow pain, later diagnosed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier initially accepted the claim and authorized medical treatment. In 2006, claimant sought authorization for left wrist surgery, which the carrier denied, asserting that liability shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. This was based on the lapse of seven years from the injury date and three years from the last compensation payment. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed § 25-a inapplicable. However, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the case was "truly closed" in July 2003 when right wrist surgery was authorized, as no further proceedings were contemplated. Consequently, the court held that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a indeed applies, shifting liability to the Special Fund, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational InjuryMedical Authorization DenialCase ReopeningStatute of LimitationsLapse of TimeTruly Closed Case DoctrineAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hantz v. Brightman Agency

Claimant, a registered nurse, sustained a compensable back injury in November 1993, with the case closed in April 1994 without an award for lost time, only symptomatic treatment. In 2002, the issue of transferring liability from the employer and its carrier, State Insurance Fund (SIF), to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a arose. After a WCLJ initially held SIF liable, the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this, deeming § 25-a applicable and shifting liability to the Special Fund, prompting the Special Fund's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that medical reports from 1995 by the claimant’s chiropractor did not constitute an application to reopen the case. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence to support that the case was truly closed in 2002, thereby correctly applying § 25-a and upholding the Special Fund's liability.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityCase ReopeningMedical Reports as ApplicationChiropractic TreatmentLost Wages CompensationSeven-Year RuleThree-Year RuleCase ClosureAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2005

Claim of Phillips v. Plainville Turkey Farms, Inc.

Claimant developed work-related calcific tendinitis in 1997, leading to surgery and a subsequent carpal tunnel release. The Workers’ Compensation Board established the claim as an occupational disease and awarded benefits. After the case was closed in 1999, the claimant's condition worsened, leading to her retirement in 2002 on medical advice due to permanent partial disability. The employer's carrier sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. However, the Board determined that medical reports from 2002 and 2003 constituted a reopening of the case within seven years of the 1997 injury, rendering § 25-a inapplicable, and found the retirement was not voluntary. This decision was affirmed on appeal.

Occupational DiseaseRotator Cuff InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromePermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Board AppealMedical Reports Reopening CaseDate of DisablementStatute of Limitations
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,721 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