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

City of New York v. Liu

The New York City Comptroller's determination from October 13, 2010, which set prevailing wage rates for “laborers” and “city laborers,” was unanimously confirmed by the court. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court found that the Comptroller's conclusion, stating that mason tenders in Local 79 perform duties comparable to those of laborers, was supported by substantial evidence gathered from investigations and site visits. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding arbitrary distinctions between

Prevailing wagelabor lawcity laborersmason tendersCPLR article 78judicial reviewjob dutieswage ratesNew York City Comptrolleremployment classification
References
3
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. ADJ10937376
Regular
Jun 17, 2019

FRANCISCA RODRIGUEZ vs. RUBIO’S RESTAURANTS, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's award of temporary disability indemnity. The Board found that defendant offered applicant modified work within her restrictions on October 13, 2017, and applicant acknowledged receiving this offer but did not respond. Given applicant's resignation and the unanswered offer of modified work, the Board determined she was not entitled to temporary disability from October 11, 2018, and continuing.

Temporary disability indemnityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardmodified workindustrial injuryneck injurythoracic spine injuryright shoulder injuryright elbow injurywrist injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ3374037 (POM 0295321)
Regular
Jan 23, 2012

JENNIFER COLLINS vs. AUTO ZONE/GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case concerns Jennifer Collins' petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision that denied her claim for permanent disability and further medical treatment. The WCJ's decision was issued on October 13, 2010. Collins argued the decision was procured by fraud because her attorney, who represented her at trial, had been dismissed on October 5, 2010. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting it was filed over a year after the WCJ's order. The Board found that Collins' new attorneys did not file the substitution of attorney form until November 2, 2010, well after the WCJ's decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPanel Qualified Medical ReportIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeClaim of FraudUntimely FilingDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceStipulations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. 21st Century Restaurant Co.

The claimant sustained multiple compensable head, neck, back, and shoulder injuries on June 13, 1974, September 20, 1974, and October 23, 1974, resulting in total disability. The central issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Board's finding of a causal connection between all these accidents, specifically the June 13, 1974 accident, and the claimant's disability. Medical evidence included reports from an attending physician and Dr. Blackwell, and testimony from board physician Dr. Harrow, who stated the injuries were 'one superimposed upon the other' with 'a cumulative end result'. The court affirmed the board's decision, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and substantial evidence supported a common causal connection to the claimant's disability.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilityCausal ConnectionPost-concussion SyndromeMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMultiple InjuriesCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. CV-24-0652
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Cahill v. New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene

Claimant Lynn Cahill sustained a work-related knee injury in 1992, which led to a total knee replacement in 2012 and subsequent revision surgeries. In October 2020, she was diagnosed with a periprosthetic infection, managed with antibiotics. Her condition acutely worsened in September 2022, leading her orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Frank Lombardo, to recommend and perform immediate cement spacer surgery on October 4, 2022, due to risks of sepsis and amputation. The employer and carrier disputed liability, arguing the surgery lacked prior authorization. However, the Workers' Compensation Board, affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that the surgery was performed on an emergency basis, thereby waiving the authorization requirement under Workers' Compensation Law § 13-a (5) and holding the carrier responsible for the costs.

Knee InjuryPeriprosthetic InfectionEmergency Medical CareSurgical AuthorizationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewMedical NecessityChronic InfectionSepsisAmputation Risk
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02142 [182 AD3d 670]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Narine v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

Claimant Millicent Narine appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially denied her application for review of a WCLJ decision due to alleged non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b), which mandates complete filling of form RB-89 for administrative review. Subsequently, the Board denied her request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board abused its discretion. It determined that Narine's responses to questions 11, 12, and 15 on form RB-89 adequately identified the contested ruling and the exception, thus fulfilling the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(2)(ii). Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's August 1, 2018 decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, while dismissing the appeal from the October 2, 2018 decision as academic.

Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ)Administrative ReviewForm RB-8912 NYCRR 300.13(b)Procedural ComplianceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewClaimant RepresentationApplication for ReviewReconsideration Denial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1982

Claim of Rooney v. Barker's Department Store

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on June 29, 1982. The Board determined that the claimant's over-all partial disability due to a lower back injury was equally attributable to two work-related accidents (October 20, 1975, and May 13, 1976) and one non-related accident (October 1976). The central issue on appeal was whether the Board erred in apportioning the claimant’s reduced earning rates for the period of September 26, 1977, to July 6, 1979, based on these percentages. The claimant contended that wage-earning capacity for a partially disabled individual should be based on actual earnings, making the degree of causally related disability irrelevant to reduced earnings. The court disagreed, holding that while actual earnings determine wage-earning capacity, an apportionment of reduced earnings based on causation is still permissible to prevent employers from being liable for non-compensable injuries. The court found it rational that each of the three accidents contributed equally to the disability, and affirmed the Board's decision, supported by substantial evidence including medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityApportionment of DisabilityReduced EarningsWork-Related InjuryNon-Work-Related InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,244 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