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 01702 [203 AD3d 1618]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

Szymkowiak v. New York Power Auth.

Plaintiff Joseph Szymkowiak initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against New York Power Authority for workplace injuries sustained in two accidents. Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims or limit damages, specifically regarding a second accident. The Supreme Court partially granted the motion but denied dismissal for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and post-concussion syndrome damages. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, ruling that claims for post-concussion syndrome and a concussion condition were barred by collateral estoppel due to prior Workers' Compensation Board findings. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and allowed claims for headaches and the actual concussion to proceed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkplace AccidentPost-concussion SyndromeConcussion InjuryAppellate ReviewElevation-related RiskComparative FaultProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tobin v. Steisel

The dissenting opinion concerns an appeal by a stationary fireman regarding the denial of his accidental disability retirement application by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, despite being granted ordinary disability. The petitioner claimed injuries, including hearing loss and post-concussion syndrome, following an explosion, with various doctors supporting a causal link. However, the medical board, relying on a psychiatrist's report, concluded the accident was merely a precipitating, not causal, event. The dissenting judge argues this distinction is semantic and unjust, particularly given the absence of any pre-existing medical conditions. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the Special Term's judgment and remanding the case for further clarification of the determination.

Accidental Disability RetirementOrdinary Disability RetirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemCausation MedicalPost-Concussion SyndromeAcoustic TraumaTraumatic NeurosisArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewMedical Board Opinion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ballou v. Southworth-Milton, Inc.

Claimant, a mechanic for 26 years, suffered second-degree burns and other injuries in February 2010. He returned to work in May 2010 with restrictions but felt unsafe due to concentration and memory problems from a post-concussion syndrome diagnosis. He retired the same month, seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board established the claim and awarded continuing benefits, finding claimant's retirement was involuntary due to his disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that his disability contributed to his retirement, and found no violation of *Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc.* regarding the inference of reduced earnings due to disability.

Workers' CompensationInvoluntary RetirementLabor Market WithdrawalPost-Concussion SyndromeDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausationReduced EarningsMedical Opinion
References
4
Case No. CV-24-1581
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of John Foster

Claimant John Foster was injured in May 2020, and the carrier accepted liability for his facial injuries. In 2023, Foster sought treatment for new conditions, including a traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, which he linked to the original accident. The carrier argued the claim for these new conditions was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28, but the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding that initial medical records provided sufficient notice of a claim within the two-year period, documenting symptoms like lightheadedness and head pain immediately after the accident. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the two-year limitation does not preclude amending a timely claim to include consequential injuries.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-concussion SyndromeConsequential InjuriesMedical RecordsNotice RequirementsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02202 [193 AD3d 1202]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Barber v. County of Cortland

Richard J. Barber, a correction officer, sustained work-related injuries, including to his jaw, post-concussive syndrome, and photophobia, after being assaulted by an inmate. His claim for workers' compensation benefits was established, and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later amended the claim to include a head injury, finding him totally industrially disabled. The self-insured employer, County of Cortland, sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board, challenging the total industrial disability finding. However, the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to fully answer question 15 on form RB-89, specifically regarding the temporal element of the objection raised. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for review due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilityForm RB-89Administrative ReviewRegulatory ComplianceAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentSelf-insured EmployerObjection TimelinessWorkers' Compensation Board
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baytsayeva v. Shapiro

A plaintiff, a former medical assistant, sued defendants alleging severe physical and emotional injuries after being struck by their car in January 2008. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff had not sustained a 'serious injury' as defined by New York Insurance Law § 5102(d). The court reviewed extensive medical evidence, including reports from treating physicians (Drs. Miller, Neystat, and Kuhn) and defendants' experts (Drs. Fisher and Block), detailing diagnoses such as post-concussion syndrome, depression, PTSD, cervical and lumbar disc issues, and significant limitations in range of motion. Finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient prima facie objective and subjective evidence to establish serious injury under permanent loss, significant limitation, and 90/180-day claims, and that causation was adequately demonstrated, the court DENIED the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Summary Judgment DeniedSerious InjuryNew York Insurance LawAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-Concussion SyndromeDepressionChronic PainRange of Motion Limitation
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,111 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