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
Feb 25, 1993

Martin v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a permanent custodial worker, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a February 25, 1993, determination by the Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District. This determination found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position. The court confirmed the Board's determination, dismissing the petitioner's proceeding on the merits. The court ruled that Civil Service Law § 50 (4) did not bar the Board from terminating the petitioner for material misrepresentations on his employment applications, as the Board, as the employer, could bring charges under Civil Service Law § 75. Additionally, a Yonkers City Court report detailing the petitioner's criminal history was deemed properly admitted, and the Board's determination was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Article 78 ProceedingMisconductDismissal from EmploymentMaterial MisrepresentationEmployment Application FraudCivil Service LawAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceCriminal History Report
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weldon v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a State Police investigator, sought disability retirement benefits due to a left shoulder injury sustained in 2003 and 2008, claiming permanent incapacitation. The application was initially denied, and this denial was upheld after a hearing, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish permanent incapacity. The respondent affirmed this determination, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, citing the lack of permanency findings in the petitioner's medical records and expert opinions from a neurologist and orthopedic surgeon who found no permanent disability. The orthopedic surgeon suggested the condition, diagnosed as chronic regional pain syndrome, was a temporary total disability that could improve with aggressive physical therapy. Consequently, the respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the petition was dismissed.

State PoliceDisability Retirement BenefitsPermanent IncapacityShoulder InjuryMedical RecordsNeurologist OpinionOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionChronic Regional Pain SyndromeTemporary Total DisabilityCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Soluri v. Superformula Products, Inc.

Claimant was injured in a work-related accident in 2001, establishing a claim for injury to their low back and left hip. Initially determined to have a total permanent disability, the workers' compensation carrier sought review. Due to conflicting medical opinions, the Workers’ Compensation Board referred the case to an impartial specialist, subsequently determining the claimant had a mild permanent partial disability. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board improperly relied on the impartial specialist's opinion for not adhering to medical guidelines. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's decision, stating that the Board is empowered to resolve conflicting medical opinions, and the impartial specialist's findings, consistent with other physicians, constituted substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityImpartial Medical ExaminationMedical OpinionsSubstantial EvidenceBoard's AuthorityAppellate DivisionDisability RatingWork-Related InjuryMedical Guidelines
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of LaClaire v. Birds Eye Foods, Inc.

Claimant sustained work-related injuries to her left and right knees in 2007. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently determined that her condition warranted a marked permanent partial disability classification, entitling her to continuing disability benefits rather than a schedule loss of use award. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed this determination. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including the claimant's orthopedic surgeon's testimony regarding crepitus, swelling, and severe pain, supported the marked permanent partial disability classification. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in requiring additional proof concerning any overpayments made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuriesAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentOverpaymentsDisability Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2017-08-0024
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2020

Thomas, Alisha v. Federal Express Corp.

Alisha Thomas filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) seeking permanent total disability benefits or additional permanent partial benefits, which Federal Express Corp. disputed. The Court ruled that Ms. Thomas is entitled to increased permanent partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B) because she had not returned to work by the expiration of her initial compensation period, and her treating physician, Dr. Melvin Goldin, attributed her condition to the work injury at that time. However, the Court denied claims for additional benefits under section 50-6-242 and permanent total disability, as Dr. Goldin's later testimony revealed Ms. Thomas's condition had evolved beyond the initial somatic symptom disorder, and he could not definitively connect her advanced symptoms to the work injury at the time of the award. The awarded increased benefits totaled $3,379.01.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySomatic Symptom DisorderImpairment RatingRes JudicataMental Injury CompensabilityIncreased BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityTreating Physician TestimonyCausation StandardSettlement Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Harrington v. L.C. Whitford Co.

The claimant, a construction worker, experienced a severe exacerbation of pre-existing asthma after exposure to burning lead paint fumes in June 1996. A certified pulmonologist, Richard Evans, determined the exposure caused a permanent and total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an accidental injury causing permanent and total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in August 2001. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the condition was pre-existing and only temporarily aggravated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the work-site exposure significantly exacerbated the claimant's stabilized asthma, leading to a permanent and total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityAsthma ExacerbationOccupational ExposureLead Paint FumesPre-existing ConditionMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident
References
14
Case No. 2017-06-1778
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Demotte, Julie v. UPS

Julie Demotte sustained a workplace injury involving a broken hip and leg in November 2016 while working for UPS. UPS initially accepted the claim and provided temporary disability benefits. Dr. Jason Evans, the authorized treating physician, placed Ms. Demotte at maximum medical improvement and assigned a three-percent whole-person impairment rating. A compensation hearing was held to determine Ms. Demotte's entitlement to permanent disability, temporary disability, and future medical benefits. The Court ordered UPS to provide lifetime medical benefits for Ms. Demotte's workplace injury, but denied her claims for both temporary and permanent disability benefits. The denial of permanent disability was based on the inadmissibility of Form C-30A as proof of impairment, as Ms. Demotte failed to present admissible evidence. Additionally, the claim for further temporary disability benefits was denied due to an earlier overpayment by UPS that exceeded any subsequent amounts due.

Workplace InjuryFuture Medical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Disability BenefitsAdmissibility of Medical ReportsForm C-30AForm C-32Impairment RatingHearsayMaximum Medical Improvement
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05774
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Matter of Jessica U. (Stephanie U.)

The Chemung County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings to terminate Stephanie U.'s parental rights, alleging permanent neglect of her six children. Following a lengthy fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found five children permanently neglected, returned the oldest to the mother's care, ordered a one-year suspended judgment for two, and terminated parental rights for the three youngest children. Stephanie U. appealed this decision, challenging both the finding of permanent neglect and the termination of parental rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the Department had made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and that the mother had failed to adequately plan for her children's future. The court also determined that the termination of parental rights for the three youngest children was in their best interests, noting their stability in preadoptive homes.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsChild CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildrenFoster CareSuspended JudgmentSocial Services
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05367 [174 AD3d 1017]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Assn.)

The City of Plattsburgh, the appellant, appealed an order from the Supreme Court that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Association. The dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which stipulated a minimum staffing level of 36 firefighters and prohibited layoffs. When a firefighter retired, reducing the staff to 35, the City refused to fill the vacancy, citing financial reasons, leading the Firemen's Association to demand arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's application to stay arbitration and granted the Association's motion to compel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the disputed CBA provision was a job security clause. The court found that this clause did not explicitly demonstrate the City's intent to waive its right to reduce staffing for budgetary or economic reasons, thus violating public policy and rendering the dispute non-arbitrable. A concurring opinion further noted that the clause also violated public policy due to its unreasonable duration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJob Security ClausePublic PolicyStaffing LevelsFirefighters UnionBudgetary ConstraintsAppellate DivisionCPLR Article 75Stay Arbitration
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,982 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