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

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
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

Oshode v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought disability and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after being injured in a slip-and-fall incident in January 2009. Her applications were denied by the respondent, who adopted the Hearing Officer's findings that the disability application was untimely and the performance of duty claim lacked proof of an inmate's act. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the court affirmed the denial. It ruled that the disability application was indeed untimely, as workers' compensation and vacation pay did not qualify as "on the payroll" payments under Retirement and Social Security Law § 507-a (b) (2). Additionally, the court upheld the denial of performance of duty benefits, noting the petitioner's concession that an inmate did not cause her injury.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPerformance of Duty DisabilityCorrection Officer InjuryTimeliness of ApplicationRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BenefitsPayroll PaymentsInmate Act RequirementJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esposito v. Regan

Petitioner, a police officer from the Nassau County Police Department, sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to back injuries sustained in duty-related accidents in 1979, 1982, and 1985. The respondent denied the application. A Hearing Officer found the incidents were not 'accidents' as defined by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, and that the petitioner did not prove permanent inability to perform restricted duty. Upon review, the court confirmed the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the injuries arose from routine duties rather than unexpected events, thus not qualifying for accidental disability benefits. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice OfficerBack InjuryDuty-Related AccidentRetirement and Social Security LawArticle 78 ProceedingCredibility DeterminationRoutine DutiesUnexpected EventPermanent Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hogan v. Hilltop Manor of Niskayuna

Claimant, a respiratory therapist, sustained a work-related back injury in November 1999. She had a history of intermittent back pain but consistently performed her job duties without restriction and missed minimal work prior to the incident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge rejected apportionment, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, attributing 50% of the disability to a preexisting condition. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that apportionment is not warranted where a claimant's prior condition was not disabling in a compensation sense and did not prevent them from effectively performing their job. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

ApportionmentPreexisting ConditionDisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardBack InjuryRespiratory TherapistSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDegenerative Disc DiseaseJob Duties
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cate v. CNA Insurance Companies

Jeffrey L. Cate sued CNA Insurance Companies for wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Cate, a computer analyst/manager, developed health issues and filed a disability claim after exhausting short-term benefits. CNA denied long-term benefits, contending physicians indicated Cate could perform his occupation in a different work setting, thus not meeting the "total disability" definition. Cate appealed, asserting his inability to perform his specific occupational duties due to his severe condition. The District Court denied both parties' summary judgment motions, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding Cate's disability status due to the lack of evidence on his specific job duties and his ability to perform them, and thus remanded the case to the plan administrator for further development of the record.

ERISA BenefitsLong-term DisabilityDisability Claim DenialSummary JudgmentRemandMedical EvidenceOccupational DutiesMental Health DisabilityPlan Administrator ReviewDe Novo Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 12,810 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