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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1969

Jones v. Radio City Music Hall Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of A. G. Frichey Corp., fell from water piping installed by the defendant-appellant in a cooling tower. The piping was not intended to support the weight of workers, but the plaintiff used it for that purpose, leading to his fall. The court reversed the judgment against the defendant-appellant, dismissing the complaint. The majority held that the defendant-appellant had no duty to provide a safe place to work for the plaintiff under these circumstances, as the plaintiff used the instrumentality for a purpose for which it was not intended, thus assuming the risk. A dissenting opinion argued that the issue of custom and usage in the trade, regarding the foreseeability of such use, should have been a jury determination.

Personal InjuryUnintended UseAssumption of RiskDuty to Provide Safe Place to WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewJury VerdictNegligenceForeseeabilityCustom and Usage
References
12
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

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaughlin v. Midrox Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiffs sought to compel Midrox Insurance Company to indemnify the Blodgett Brothers Partnerships for a $1 million judgment in an underlying personal injury action. The accident involved a motorcycle operated by plaintiff Charles R. McLaughlin and a pickup truck driven by Ronald Blodgett. Midrox had disclaimed coverage, arguing the accident occurred off insured premises and involved a registered vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the farmowner's policy did provide coverage. The court determined that public roadways used for transporting materials between farm parcels could be considered 'insured premises' and that the pickup truck's agricultural registration did not negate coverage given its exclusive use for farming purposes.

Personal InjuryFarmowner's InsuranceInsurance CoverageAgricultural TruckPolicy InterpretationOff-Premises AccidentPublic RoadwaysSummary JudgmentIndemnificationVehicle and Traffic Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. R. I. Suresky & Sons, Inc.

The claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving a demonstrator vehicle provided by his employer to a grocery store on a holiday. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted benefits, ruling that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment because the claimant was providing a valuable service through the visibility of the demonstrator vehicle. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's travel was for a personal errand on personal time and that the mere presence of dealer identification on the vehicle did not transform personal use into business use. The court concluded there was no substantial evidence that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, as the claimant was neither on-call nor traveling to or from work at the time of the accident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDemonstrator VehiclePersonal ErrandCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentAutomobile SalespersonOff-Duty InjuryAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionEmployer Benefit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hampton v. Kelly

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded death benefits to the decedent’s beneficiaries. The decedent, a part-time liquor store employee, was fatally injured in December 1967 while commuting to work in his personal vehicle. The Board had affirmed a Referee’s award, reasoning that the decedent’s use of his car for occasional deliveries benefited the employer, thus making his commute work-related. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no substantial evidence to support that the decedent’s car use was required by the employer or for business purposes. The court concluded that the decedent used his car for personal convenience, and the store policy was against deliveries, therefore, his travel to work did not fall within the course of employment.

Death Benefits ClaimEmployment ScopeCommute RulePersonal Vehicle UseEmployer Benefit TestAccident InjuryAppellate Court DecisionReversal of AwardSubstantial Evidence ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Greene v. City of New York Department of Social Services

Sue Greene, a homemaker for the New York City Department of Social Services, was injured in a car accident in 1974 while traveling between work assignments. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied by a referee and subsequently affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, based on a finding that she used her personal car for convenience without employer authorization. The dissenting opinion argued that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's denial of benefits, emphasizing the unauthorized use of the vehicle. However, the order was ultimately reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division for further proceedings, indicating the majority found the denial was not dictated as a matter of law. This decision highlights the complexities of determining what constitutes 'in the course of employment' when an employee uses a personal vehicle without explicit authorization.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentPersonal Vehicle UseEmployer AuthorizationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionWorkmen's Compensation BoardRemand OrderDissenting OpinionHomemaker Duties
References
0
Case No. 05-cv-4622 (consolidated with 07-cv-916)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2016

Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC

This consolidated action involves approximately 200 individuals and estates, referred to as 'Plaintiffs,' who are suing National Westminster Bank PLC ('Defendant') under the civil liability provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act of 1992. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is liable for aiding and abetting terrorism, providing material support to Hamas, and unlawfully transmitting funds used for terrorist purposes in connection with 15 attacks in Israel and Palestine. The Defendant sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied both motions, concluding that the Defendant had waived its personal jurisdiction defense by not asserting it earlier after the Daimler Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, the court found that specific personal jurisdiction existed over the Defendant due to its deliberate and repeated use of New York's banking system for significant dollar transfers on behalf of an alleged Hamas front organization, and that exercising such jurisdiction complied with due process.

Anti-terrorism ActPersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentHamasTerrorism FinancingCorrespondent BankingDue Process
References
59
Case No. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,591 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