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

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2001

Claim of Medina v. Building Maintenance Service

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in July 1999. Her physician, Dr. Magdy Elamir, failed to file medical reports with the Workers' Compensation Board after August 1999 and before April 18, 2001, and with the State Insurance Fund until April 18, 2001. This led to a controversy over insurance coverage between Fireman’s Fund and State Fund. Initially, a WCLJ awarded benefits, but the Board rescinded the award for October 4, 1999, to April 18, 2001, citing prejudice to State Fund. On appeal, the court determined that State Fund was not prejudiced from October 4, 1999, to December 21, 2000, and reversed that part of the Board's decision, while affirming the denial of benefits from December 21, 2000, to April 18, 2001.

Workers' CompensationMedical Report FilingPrejudiceInsurance Coverage DisputeDenial of BenefitsAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceRegulatory ComplianceNeurologist
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Marsh U.S.A., Inc.

The State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board appealed an order that partially granted motions to dismiss filed by several defendants, including former trustees (Zubin, Mclvor) and the Trust administrator (Marsh U.S.A., Inc.). The Trust, formed in 1998, provided workers' compensation insurance to construction employers and later operated at a deficit, leading to the plaintiff assuming its administration in 2009. Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract and fraud against the trustees, and breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Marsh. The Supreme Court had dismissed fraud claims against Zubin and Mclvor and partially dismissed claims against Marsh based on statute of limitations and lack of agreement. On appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims against Zubin and Mclvor, finding them directly related to breach of contract. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of breach of contract claims against Marsh regarding premium calculations from November 2006 to October 2007, citing the discovery of a relevant agreement. The order was therefore modified and affirmed as modified.

Workers' CompensationSelf-Insurance TrustBreach of ContractFraudStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewInsurance AdministrationTrust ManagementFiduciary DutyPremium Calculation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carnibucci v. New York State Executive Department Division for Youth

Petitioner, a Youth Division Aide IV, was terminated on August 10, 1991, under Civil Service Law § 71 due to alleged cumulative absences exceeding one year from a work-related back injury. Petitioner challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a second back injury was unrelated to the first. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled on May 27, 1992, that the second injury was indeed unrelated, leading to petitioner's reinstatement on October 18, 1992. The Supreme Court initially awarded back pay only until the Board's determination date. However, the appellate court modified this judgment, directing that back pay should be awarded from the date of wrongful termination, August 10, 1991, until the date of actual reinstatement, October 18, 1992.

Public EmploymentWrongful TerminationBack PayReinstatementCivil Service LawWorkers' CompensationAppellate DivisionArticle 78 ProceedingDisability BenefitsState Employee
References
3
Case No. ADJ8969504
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

GLADYS PAZ, vs. TECH FLEX; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP

This case concerns the timeliness of a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services rendered to applicant Gladys Paz. The lien was filed on October 19, 2015, more than 18 months after the last date of service on December 23, 2013. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the lien is barred by the 18-month limitation period in Labor Code section 4903.5(a) for services provided on or after July 1, 2013. The Board found that the amended statute applied and lien claimant had a reasonable time to file within 18 months of their last service date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Statute of LimitationsReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeContinuous ServicesEffective DateRetroactive Application
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Plaintiff Juan Garcia was injured when struck by a falling piece of DensGlass while working on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction. He was dismantling a bridge linked to an exterior hoist elevator when the material, matching a missing piece from the floor above, struck him. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that the exterior facade was incomplete and workers were performing patch work above. Additionally, the court denied the defendants-respondents' cross motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the necessity of overhead protection in an area exposed to falling objects.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. 2020-09171, N-349-18, N-8740-18, N-8741-18, N-8742-18, N-8743-18, N-8744-18, N-8745-18, N-8746-18, N-8747-18, N-8748-18, N-8749-18, N-8750-18, N-8751-18, N-8752-18, N-8753-18, N-345-19
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Matter of Amaris A. A. (Jasmine R.)

This case details an appeal by Jasmine R., the mother, from a Family Court order in Suffolk County. The Family Court had found that the mother abused her child, Amaris A. A., and derivatively neglected her seven other children, based on evidence of abusive head trauma and multiple healing rib fractures. The Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented expert testimony from a pediatric radiologist confirming non-accidental trauma. The mother failed to rebut the prima facie case of child abuse. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's findings, concluding that DSS established abuse and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectDerivative NeglectAbusive Head TraumaRib FracturesFamily Court Act Article 10Preponderance of EvidencePrima Facie CaseAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sansone v. Maislin Transp., Ltd.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision, filed on May 18, 1978, and amended on October 5, 1978, affirmed a referee's ruling. This ruling determined that the decedent suffered from a permanent partial disability from October 22, 1974, until his passing. The Board's finding was supported by medical evidence, specifically Dr. Whitbeck’s C-71 report, which indicated a causal relationship between the disability and the original accident. The appellate court affirmed this determination, noting substantial evidence for the board's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewReferee DecisionBoard AffirmationDisability BenefitsCausal RelationshipDr. WhitbeckMedical Report
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1981

Claim of Green v. Community Day Care Center

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, originally filed on July 15, 1981, and later amended on December 21, 1981. The Board had determined that the claimant was disabled and eligible for weekly compensation payments of $46.18 for the period from October 1, 1979, to October 16, 1980. This determination was based on reports from Drs. Harrow and Wilier, which indicated that the claimant's loss of earnings was due to a continuing causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support its findings, and awarded costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Disability CompensationWorkers' Compensation BoardLoss of EarningsCausally Related DisabilityAppellate AffirmationMedical OpinionSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensation RateDisability Period
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,216 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