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 Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hofmann v. New York State Comptroller

Petitioner, a correction officer, applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining an injury in 1995 while intervening in an inmate altercation. The respondent Comptroller denied his application, adopting a Hearing Officer's finding that the disability was not causally linked to the incident. During the administrative review, the Hearing Officer selectively admitted an unfavorable medical report while excluding a subsequent, favorable report from the same orthopedic surgeon. The Appellate Division determined that this selective admission of evidence caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the court annulled the Comptroller's determination and remitted the matter, ordering reconsideration with both conflicting medical reports.

Disability Retirement BenefitsCorrection OfficerPerformance of DutyCausal RelationshipAdministrative ProcedureEvidence AdmissibilityConflicting Medical ReportsSubstantial PrejudiceRemittalWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dormeyer v. McCall

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial stemmed from the petitioner's failure to provide the mandatory written notice under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The court found that the petitioner did not preserve the 'good cause' exception issue for review as it was not raised during the administrative hearing. Furthermore, the court upheld the respondent's determination that oral notice to the employer was insufficient to satisfy the Workers’ Compensation Law exception. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty BenefitsNotice RequirementsAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssuesGood CauseWorkers' Compensation ExceptionOral NoticeDetermination Confirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Nunez v. White

Petitioner, a prison inmate at Clinton County Correctional Facility, filed a grievance concerning tailor shop conditions, including an alleged unwritten policy on performance evaluations, lack of sewing machine safety guards, and removal of seat cushions. The Central Office Review Committee (CORC) largely denied the grievance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The appellate court affirmed CORC's rational determination regarding performance evaluations and sewing machine safety. However, it modified the judgment, remitting the part of the petition concerning the seat cushion procedure to CORC for further adjudication, as that aspect of the grievance had not been fully addressed.

inmate grievanceprison conditionsperformance evaluationtailor shopsewing machine safetyseat cushion policyadministrative exhaustionCPLR article 78Central Office Review Committeeremittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bal v. Sidewalk of New York Productions, Inc.

Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employer contended the termination was due to unsatisfactory performance prior to the reported injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, questioning the claimant's testimony and a tape recording. A Board panel affirmed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's discretionary denial, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant had ample opportunity to litigate the credibility issue and further review was unwarranted.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimCredibility IssueDiscretionary ReviewFull Board ReviewPro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUnsatisfactory Job Performance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,026 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