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

Silberstein v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

This is an employment discrimination action filed by plaintiff Silberstein, formerly a senior vice president at The New Yorker, alleging demotion and termination due to a second pregnancy under Title VII and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. and S.I. Néwhouse, Jr., moved to dismiss claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. The court granted the motion, ruling that New York law’s stringent standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress were not met, especially given that statutory remedies for discrimination already exist without punitive damages. The negligent supervision claim was also dismissed due to the exclusivity of workers' compensation as a remedy for co-employee negligence and the lack of allegations regarding the employer's knowledge of the supervisor's propensities.

Employment DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent SupervisionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawsWorkers' Compensation LawMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07432 [166 AD3d 621]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company (Progressive) against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) concerning an arbitration award. The dispute arose under Insurance Law § 5105 regarding a loss transfer claim, where NYCTA sought reimbursement from Progressive for workers' compensation benefits paid to its employee after a collision involving Progressive's insured. The central issue was whether a 20% no-fault offset applied to the workers' compensation wages, with the arbitrator ruling it did not, as a one-third offset had already been applied. Progressive's petition to vacate the award was denied by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the arbitrator's determination was supported by a reasonable hypothesis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration AwardLoss TransferInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault OffsetAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and CapriciousReasonable Hypothesis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1986

Claim of Foglia v. New York City Housing Authority

The claimant, a New York City Housing Authority police officer, sustained a compensable knee injury in 1974. The case was reopened in 1983 due to increased disability, and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was put on notice for potential liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The issue was whether there was an advance payment of compensation, which would relieve the Special Fund from liability. The claimant testified that he retired in 1983 but had been on limited duty performing clerical work at full salary since 1982 due to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that these full salary payments for lighter work constituted an advance payment of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that an advance payment of compensation relieved the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardAdvance PaymentSpecial FundReopened CasesDisabilitySchedule LossPolice OfficerLimited DutySubstantial EvidenceFactual Determination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Blandon v. Advance Contracting Co.

Francisco Blandón, a night watchman at 1440 Broadway, was gravely injured after falling through an opening where a spiral staircase had been removed by Advance Contracting Co. during a building renovation. He was attempting to secure an unlocked tenant door in semi-darkness, unaware of the staircase's removal, and fell through the opening. Initially, a jury found Advance Contracting Co. and third-party defendants liable, but the Supreme Court reversed this judgment on appeal. The court determined that Blandón, performing routine maintenance as a night watchman, was not afforded protection under Labor Law § 241 (6), which is specifically for workers engaged in construction activities. His legal recourse was therefore limited to workers' compensation.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityConstruction Site InjuryNight WatchmanSecurity GuardLabor Law 241(6)Routine MaintenanceScope of EmploymentThird-Party ClaimsAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. STK 0142666
Regular
Jan 17, 2008

DAVID SOTO vs. ADVANCED PACKING & DISTRIBUTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION On Behalf Of RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an injury while employed by both a general employer (Remedy) and a special employer (Advanced). Remedy's insurer, Reliance, became insolvent, leading CIGA to assume potential liability. The WCJ found that Advanced's insurer, SCIF, provided "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), thus relieving CIGA of responsibility. The Appeals Board denied SCIF's reconsideration, affirming that SCIF's policy constituted "other insurance" and that CIGA is a last resort insurer.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAReliance Insurance Companyliquidationspecial employergeneral employerother insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)covered claimsjoint and several liability
References
14
Case No. CV-24-1300
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Matter of Siddon v. Advance Energy Tech.

Kimberly Siddon suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2006, leading to a 12% schedule loss of use (SLU), later increased to 20% in 2009. In November 2022, an orthopedic surgeon, Kevin Scott, evaluated her and opined a 35% SLU due to worsening condition. The Workers' Compensation Board denied Siddon's application to reopen her claim, asserting she failed to demonstrate a material change in condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases had waived its opportunity to contest Scott's opinion and that the Board's dismissal of Scott's objective goniometer measurements was inconsistent with its own impairment guidelines. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryMedical Expert OpinionSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWaiverRange of MotionAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionReopening Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation and Storage, Inc.

Plaintiff Julianne Eisenberg sued Advance Relocation and Storage, Inc. and related entities, alleging hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliatory termination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Eisenberg was an independent contractor, not an employee. The court applied the common law agency test, weighing factors like tax treatment, skill required, and control. Ultimately, the court determined Eisenberg was an independent contractor, primarily due to her tax status and lack of employee benefits, and thus not protected by the relevant statutes. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawSexual HarassmentDiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliatory TerminationSummary Judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Winters v. Advance Auto Parts

Claimant, injured while working for Advance Auto Parts and subsequently for LKQ Broadway Used Auto Parts, was terminated from LKQ for absenteeism. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that his separation was due to his injury, ruling that he voluntarily removed himself from the labor market due to insufficient evidence of attachment. This court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board erred by requiring documentation for participation in a job-location service (One-Stop Career Centers) despite finding the claimant's testimony credible. The court emphasized that the Board failed to adequately explain its departure from prior precedent, which accepted credible testimony without documentation for such services. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalAbsenteeism TerminationCredible TestimonyDocumentary Evidence RequirementOne-Stop Career CentersVocational RehabilitationBoard PrecedentArbitrary Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Advanced Digital Information Corp.

Plaintiff Lucinda Allen filed suit against her former employer, Advanced Digital Information Corporation (ADIC), alleging sex-based hostile work environment, unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), gender-based discrimination under Title VII and NYHRL, and retaliatory termination. ADIC moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted ADIC's motion regarding Allen's hostile work environment and EPA claims, finding the former lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness and the latter had been abandoned. However, the court denied summary judgment on Allen's sex discrimination and retaliation claims, concluding that material questions of fact remained regarding ADIC's discriminatory intent and the causal link between Allen's protected activities and her termination. Consequently, the sex discrimination and retaliation claims will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActNew York State Human Rights LawWorkplace HarassmentGender Discrimination
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 333 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