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
Nov 28, 1984

Claim of De Bitetto v. City of White Plains

The claimant, a firefighter for the City of White Plains, suffered a compensable back injury in 1971, leading to permanent partial disability benefits. His case was reopened, and in 1983, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded him over $15,000 in back compensation. Subsequently, the claimant sought review to rescind these awards, aiming to recover Social Security deductions, but the Board denied his request. The claimant appealed this denial. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant lacked standing as he was not an aggrieved party, and the Board's discretionary decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Disability BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Disability ClaimSocial Security OffsetsAppeal from Board DecisionReconsideration RequestJudicial DiscretionStanding to AppealAggrieved PartyFirefighter Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2006

Diaz v. White Plains Coat & Apron Co.

Manuel Diaz, a laundry worker, was injured after falling from a laundry bin while employed in a building owned by White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. He initiated an action for personal injuries against the defendant, predicated on premises liability. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case and sought to amend its answer to include a Workers' Compensation defense, arguing surprise due to a shift in the plaintiff's theory of liability to negligent supervision. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case was granted, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Premises LiabilityNegligent SupervisionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPrima Facie CaseMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJury VerdictInterlocutory JudgmentNew York LawPersonal Injury Damages
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. White Plains Housing Authority

The petitioner challenged the White Plains Housing Authority's June 28, 1993 determination to terminate his employment as a maintenance worker through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, dismissing the proceeding on the merits with costs. The decision was based on a finding that substantial evidence supported all three charges against the petitioner, referencing precedents such as Matter of Lahey v Kelly and Matter of County of Suffolk v Newman.

CPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewEmployment TerminationMaintenance WorkerWhite Plains Housing AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative DeterminationPublic EmploymentDismissal on MeritsCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. ADJ8115084
Regular
Jun 02, 2014

MARY HAYWORTH vs. KCI HOLDINGS USA, INC., FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant failed to establish a plainly erroneous fact in an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The Board found the IMR decision was based on a plainly erroneous mistake of fact because it evaluated a request for dorsal medial branch block injections as though it were a request for facet injections, which are different procedures. Consequently, the medical treatment dispute is remanded to the Administrative Director for review by a different independent review organization or reviewer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.5Plainly Erroneous Finding of FactMedical Treatment DisputeUtilization ReviewAdministrative DirectorDorsal Medial Branch BlockFacet InjectionsMTUS Guidelines
References
2
Case No. ADJ2068970 (STK 0167616)
Regular
Jul 21, 2016

Norman McAtee vs. Briggs & Pearson Construction, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that dismissed his appeal of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination regarding pain medication. The IMR found the medication medically unnecessary, but the applicant argues this was based on a plainly erroneous finding of fact regarding the applicable treatment guidelines. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the IMR determination was indeed based on a plainly erroneous interpretation of the medical treatment guidelines. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and remanded the case for a new IMR by a different reviewer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewPlainly Erroneous Finding of FactLabor Code Section 4610.6Medical Treatment GuidelineOpioid TherapyPermanent DisabilityVocational RehabilitationAdministrative Law JudgeReconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrell v. Dolce

John P. Farrell, a former City of White Plains firefighter, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the termination of his General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) benefits. Farrell, who retired due to a line-of-duty injury, had voluntarily opted for Retirement and Social Security Law § 384-d benefits, which include mandatory retirement at age 62. The City of White Plains subsequently ceased his supplemental payments on his 62nd birthday, citing General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Farrell argued that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) preempted the age-based termination and that he was denied due process because the benefit was terminated without a hearing. The court, presided over by Justice John R. LaCava, found that Farrell’s section 207-a (2) benefits fell under the 'continued benefit payments' exception of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), making the ADEA inapplicable. The court concluded that the respondents' determination to terminate benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and that Farrell was not denied due process given the legal basis of the decision. Therefore, Farrell's petition was denied.

CPLR Article 78General Municipal Law § 207-aAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)Disability BenefitsFirefighter BenefitsMandatory Retirement AgeDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationPublic Safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Plains City School District Board of Education v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff initiated legal action against several general liability insurance carriers, seeking a declaration that the carriers were obligated to defend and indemnify it in an underlying negligence case, Denslow v City of White Plains, involving a deceased employee's asbestos-related cancer. Defendants Northern Insurance Company of New York and Merchants Mutual Insurance Company moved for summary judgment, asserting that their policies contained exclusionary clauses for bodily injury to employees arising during employment. Initially, the Supreme Court denied these motions due to perceived ambiguity in the exclusions. However, upon reargument, the court concluded that the exclusionary clauses were unambiguous and should not be interpreted through Workers' Compensation Law, which defines 'course of employment' more narrowly. Consequently, the court reversed its prior decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, citing New York precedent that upholds the plain meaning of such clauses.

Summary judgmentInsurance coverage disputeExclusionary clausesBodily injury claimsCourse of employmentWorkers' Compensation interpretationOccupational diseaseAsbestos exposure liabilityDeclaratory judgment actionDismissal of complaint
References
4
Case No. 824-01
Regular Panel Decision

Hi Pockets, Inc. v. Music Conservatory of Westchester, Inc.

Hi Pockets, Inc. (HPI) sued The Music Conservatory of Westchester, Laura Calzolari, and several White Plains municipal entities and officials, alleging illegal issuance of a building permit for the Conservatory's new site. HPI brought fifteen causes of action, including Section 1983 claims for civil and constitutional rights violations, and numerous state law claims related to zoning ordinances, lease agreements, and parking rights. The Conservatory defendants moved for summary judgment, and the White Plains defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted both motions, dismissing the case in its entirety, finding that HPI's state law claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and its federal Section 1983 claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to absolute immunity for municipal officials and the availability of adequate state post-deprivation remedies.

Summary JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataAbsolute ImmunityZoning OrdinanceBuilding PermitParking RightsCovenant of Quiet EnjoymentSection 1983
References
31
Case No. ADJ8286511
Regular
May 30, 2017

HECTOR SANCHEZ BARRAGAN vs. T&T MARKETING SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that upheld an Independent Medical Review (IMR) denial of a Norco prescription. The applicant argued the IMR determination exceeded the Administrative Director's authority due to a plainly erroneous application of Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines. The WCAB denied the petition, adopting the trial judge's report which found the IMR reviewer correctly applied medical expertise to select relevant MTUS sections for chronic opioid use. The Board determined the applicant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of erroneous MTUS application or that the IMR decision was otherwise invalid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewNorcoMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleAdministrative DirectorLabor CodeChronic Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brennan v. Straub

Dorothy Anne Brennan sued Frank G. Straub, Elisabeth Wallace, George Gretsas, Edward Dunphy, the City of White Plains, John Dolce, and Daniel Hickey for civil rights violations under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stemming from her employment termination. Brennan alleged retaliation after filing a gender discrimination complaint and testifying for a co-worker. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing Title VII claims against individual defendants but allowing First Amendment and due process claims to proceed against them at this stage.

Civil RightsEmployment TerminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationPublic EmployeeFirst AmendmentDue ProcessRule 12(b)(6) MotionLegislative ImmunityCivil Service Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 439 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