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

Frank Chevrolet Corp. v. Meyers

The appellant filed a motion for a stay pending appeal. The court granted this motion on the condition that the appellant perfect the appeal and be prepared to argue or submit it on April 6, 1962. The appeal was scheduled for April 6, 1962. The court also decided that the appeal would be heard based on the original papers and typewritten briefs from both parties, which must include any opinion from the lower court. Both appellant and respondent were instructed to file six copies of their briefs and serve one copy on each other, with the appellant's brief due by March 26, 1962. The judges Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan, and Hopkins concurred with this decision.

stay pending appealmotion grantedappellate procedurebriefs filingcourt orderjudicial concurrence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Donovan v. Knickerbocker Warehousing Corp.

The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant's work effort caused a myocardial infarction. The board reversed a referee's initial denial and restored the case for an award. An appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court from the board’s determination. Subsequently, a referee's decision made an award, which the appellant also appealed to the board, and that appeal is still pending. The board moved to dismiss the appellant's appeal to this court for failure to prosecute, arguing the appeal was premature as the board’s initial decision made no award and was nonfinal, and because the appeal from the award was still pending before the board. The court denied the motion, clarifying that an interlocutory decision determining all substantive issues can be considered 'final' for appeal purposes, but appealing such a decision immediately is optional, as it can also be reviewed upon an appeal from the board’s final determination.

Interlocutory DecisionFinality of AppealWorkers' Compensation LawMotion to DismissPremature AppealAppellate ProcedureBoard DeterminationAward PendingSubstantive IssuesThreshold Legal Issues
References
4
Case No. 3041 0151
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of West v. Titan Express, Inc.

The claimant appealed a November 6, 2012 decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that denied a variance request for certain medical injections. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued an amended decision in April 2013, superseding the original but reaching the same ultimate conclusion. The Court determined that the Board acted within its statutory authority in issuing the amended decision, as the appeal had not yet been perfected and no prejudice resulted. However, because the amended decision superseded the initial one, the Court found the pending appeal moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical VarianceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineBoard JurisdictionAmended DecisionProcedural IssuesClaimant AppealTitan Express Inc.
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re General Motors Corp.

This Bench Decision addresses motions for § 158(d)(2) certification to the Circuit and, alternatively, for a stay pending appeal of a July 5 Order in the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and its affiliates. Presiding Judge Robert E. Gerber denied both motions, finding the conditions for direct appeal to the Circuit were not met due to controlling precedent in the Second Circuit and the lack of a question of public importance that had not already been decided. Regarding the stay request, the court determined that the movants failed to establish a substantial possibility of success on the merits. Granting a stay would inflict catastrophic and irreparable harm upon GM, its multitude of creditors, 225,000 employees, 500,000 retirees, 11,500 suppliers, 6,000 dealers, and the broader North American auto industry, outweighing any potential harm to the appellants. The decision emphasized the critical public interest in allowing GM's essential asset sale to proceed without delay to avoid immediate liquidation.

Bankruptcy AppealSection 158(d)(2) CertificationRule 8005 StayEquitable Mootness DoctrineSuccessor LiabilityPublic Interest FactorsIrreparable HarmCorporate LiquidationCreditors' CommitteeJudicial Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Serrano

The claimant was initially denied unemployment insurance benefits by the Industrial Commissioner due to alleged misconduct, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. While the claimant's appeal to the Appellate Division was pending, the Attorney-General, representing the Industrial Commissioner, persuaded the Board to reopen the case, arguing the initial decision lacked substantial evidence. Despite the employer's objection, the Board reopened the matter, took additional testimony, and, on new factual grounds, again sustained the denial of benefits. The Appellate Division found the Board's reopening an abuse of discretion, particularly considering the availability of witnesses at the first hearing and the shift in factual basis for denying benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's original decision due to a lack of substantial evidence and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductAbuse of DiscretionHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceReopening DecisionAppellate ReviewRemandDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Mott's Inc.

Mott's Inc. (third-party plaintiff) brought a third-party action against J.J. Young Co., Inc. (third-party defendant) for indemnification or contribution related to an underlying Labor Law § 240 (1) action. The Supreme Court initially denied Mott's motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification but granted it on common-law indemnification, while denying Young's cross-motion for a stay. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of contractual indemnification, finding Mott's failed to prove an indemnification provision. It also vacated the grant of common-law indemnification to Mott's, stating it was not sought in the original motion. Finally, the court granted Young's cross-motion, staying the third-party action pending a Workers’ Compensation Board determination on the issue of special employment for the plaintiff, Francis K. Miller, which will impact the apportionment of any Workers' Compensation award.

indemnificationcontributionsummary judgmentLabor LawWorkers' Compensationspecial employmentcontractual indemnificationcommon-law indemnificationAppellate Divisionstay of proceedings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Statt v. Goldstein

In this action alleging social worker malpractice and negligence, the defendant sought disclosure of the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist's records and notes. The plaintiff moved for a protective order, while the defendant cross-moved to compel disclosure. The Supreme Court deferred its decision pending an in camera review of the records. Both the defendant and plaintiff appealed this deferral. The appellate court dismissed both appeals as premature, noting that neither motion had been decided, and thus no substantial right of either party had been affected yet.

social worker malpracticenegligenceprotective ordercompel disclosurein camera reviewpremature appealCPLR 5701psychiatric recordsprivileged informationappellate procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Endicott Johnson Corp.

The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.

Appellate ProcedurePermission to AppealCourt of AppealsStay of ProceedingsJudicial Panel
References
1
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2013

Claim of Monahan v. Founders Pavilion, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2006, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 2009. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed the employer's workers' compensation carrier to deposit funds into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) per Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (2). The carrier's appeals were unsuccessful, with the Workers’ Compensation Board affirming the decision. A supplemental decision set the ATF deposit at $127,241.44. During pending appeals, the claimant died in April 2010 from unrelated causes. The carrier requested rescission of the deposit obligation, arguing claimant's death extinguished it. The Board upheld the decision, and the full Board affirmed, imposing a $500 frivolous appeal penalty. The carrier appealed to this Court. The Court affirmed the obligation to pay into the ATF, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (4), which maintains the obligation regardless of claimant's death during appeal. The Court also found no requirement to recalculate the payment based on interim carrier payments. However, the Court reversed the frivolous appeal penalty, deeming it unwarranted given the dissent at the Board level and the unsettled nature of the legal issue.

Workers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityFrivolous AppealAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationClaimant DeathCarrier ObligationsLump-Sum PaymentInterest
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 25,700 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