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

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

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Browne v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a police officer, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after being injured in 2005. His applications were denied, and this denial was upheld after a hearing, finding he was not permanently incapacitated. The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this determination. The court considered conflicting medical evidence, including the petitioner's evidence of a 30% shoulder loss of use and radiculopathy, and an orthopedist's report for the New York State and Local Retirement System concluding the petitioner was not disabled. The court ultimately confirmed the respondent's determination, citing substantial evidence from the orthopedist's rational and fact-based medical opinion.

Disability RetirementPolice Officer InjuryAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityCPLR Article 78Medical IncapacitationConflicting Medical EvidenceOrthopedic EvaluationRadiculopathyShoulder Injury
References
4
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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
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. 05-17-01187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Linda Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC.

This case involves an appeal from a jury trial where Dallas Performance, LLC (DP) and Taylor Sims prevailed against Linda Douglas. Linda had sued DP for conversion, wrongful detention of her vehicle, and other claims after DP retained her car due to unpaid repair and storage fees. The jury found in favor of DP and Sims, awarding them $9,000.00 for breach of contract regarding storage fees and $3,200.00 in quantum meruit for motor work. The appellees, DP and Sims, argue that the trial court's judgment, which was entered in accordance with the jury's findings, should be affirmed. They assert their right to a possessory lien on the vehicle and that Linda agreed to the storage fee policy and additional work performed on her car.

Motor Vehicle RepairPossessory LienStorage FeesQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesConversionWrongful DetainerDallas PerformanceLinda Douglas
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parish v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a correction officer, was injured in April 1999 and May 2004, leading to her being placed on leave without pay. She applied for disability retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied. The Hearing Officer found the disability retirement application untimely and that the injury was not a result of a direct act of an inmate for performance of duty benefits. The Respondent adopted these findings, leading to this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, dismissing the petition, finding the application for disability benefits untimely and agreeing that a floor waxing by an inmate does not constitute an 'act of an inmate' for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty DisabilityCorrection OfficerTimeliness of ApplicationAct of an InmateWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Leave of AbsenceCPLR Article 78New York LawPublic Employees
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,560 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