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. 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
Jan 06, 2003

Yanulavich v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2008

Baldwin v. Garage Management Corp.

Plaintiffs Jessica Baldwin and an infant plaintiff brought a personal injury action after a collision with a stolen vehicle driven by defendant Michael Walker. The vehicle was stolen from a garage operated by defendants Garage Management Corp., Garage Management Company, LLC, and Ricant Parking, LLC. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the garage defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) and common-law negligence, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original determination. The appellate court affirmed the order dated April 15, 2008, finding that the garage was not a "parking lot" under VTL § 129-b, and the vehicle was not left unattended in violation of VTL § 1210 (a). Furthermore, the court found no common-law negligence liability for damages caused by a thief.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStolen VehicleGarage LiabilityNegligenceVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate AffirmationKings CountyReargument
References
7
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. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1979

Claim of Tsapatoris v. G. L. M. Corp.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board which denied compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred while the claimant, a construction worker, was driving his personal vehicle to work approximately 10 miles from his home, prior to his scheduled work hours. The Board concluded that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, noting that the use of his personal vehicle was not a requirement of his job and any tools carried were for personal convenience. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentCourse of EmploymentCommuting RulePersonal VehicleTravel ExpensesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DecisionInjury CompensationBoard Determination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2003

Tempio v. City of Buffalo

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the City of Buffalo Fire Department, initiated a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a and respondeat superior. The plaintiff claimed injuries due to a fellow employee's negligence in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that the plaintiff falls within the class of persons covered by section 205-a, as it applies to 'any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured... while in the discharge or performance... of any duty.' Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude this action, citing that section 205-a grants recovery rights 'in addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law.'

Personal InjuryMunicipal LawRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationVehicle and Traffic LawEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFire Department
References
1
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. ADJ10864843
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

YOLANDA PLASCENCIA vs. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained injuries after falling into a pothole on her employer's premises during a break. The applicant was in the process of switching vehicles with her daughter when the incident occurred. The defendant argued the injury was not AOE/COE, as the personal vehicle exchange served no employer benefit and the personal comfort doctrine did not apply. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable under the personal comfort doctrine. The Board reasoned that it's reasonably contemplated for employees to access the employer's parking lot during breaks, and moving a personal car is a personal convenience incidental to employment.

AOE/COEPersonal Comfort DoctrineIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJEmployer's PremisesPaid Break
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canfield v. Beach

The plaintiff, Linda E. Canfield, was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident with a vehicle operated by William R. Beach and owned by ELRAC, Inc. Canfield sued for personal injuries. The Supreme Court granted Canfield summary judgment on liability and dismissed ELRAC's first and second affirmative defenses, which claimed she did not sustain a serious injury or economic loss exceeding $50,000, arguing she wasn't a 'covered person' under no-fault laws due to being a federal employee. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on liability for Canfield but modified the order by reinstating ELRAC's affirmative defenses, ruling that Canfield, as a federal employee operating a government vehicle, is a 'covered person' under New York's no-fault law. Her FECA benefits are deemed equivalent to no-fault benefits, thus limiting her recovery for basic economic loss to amounts exceeding $50,000 and for non-economic loss contingent on demonstrating a serious injury.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefensesNo-Fault LawInsurance LawFederal EmployeesFECA BenefitsEconomic Loss
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,305 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