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 21, 2012

Claim of Borgal v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority

In January 2009, the claimant sustained work-related injuries to his left shoulder and right hand, leading to total temporary disability benefits after undergoing shoulder surgery in July 2009. An MRI in August 2010 revealed a retearing of the rotator cuff. The self-insured employer initiated surveillance and alleged that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his work activities and the extent of his disability on benefits questionnaires. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant had not violated the law. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination, noting that the claimant's minimal renovation-related activities did not constitute work for the purpose of misrepresentation and that medical opinions supported his reported disability level.

Workers' Compensation LawFraud allegationMisrepresentation of disabilitySurveillance evidenceRotator cuff injuryTotal temporary disabilitySubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewClaimant credibilityRenovation activities
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. G0061596
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

THOME, JASON v. BENCHMARK MAIN TRANSIT ASSOCIATES

Jose Sanchez, a bus maintainer, sustained an occupational disease of his right hand and wrist in 2012 due to repetitive motions at work for the NYC Transit Authority. His claim was initially established in 2013, with a 15% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right hand. In 2019, the claimant sought to reopen the case, asserting a consequential right shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a 7.5% SLU of the right shoulder, attributing 50% to the established claim and 50% to an earlier, unstabilized shoulder condition. The WCLJ also denied the Special Funds Conservation Committee's application for discharge under WCL § 15(8)(d). The Board Panel affirmed the WCLJ's decision, finding the evidence supported the apportionment and that the employer's failure to serve a notice of controversy under WCL § 25(2)(b) precluded discharge of the Special Funds.

Occupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseApportionmentSpecial FundsNotice of ControversyRight Hand InjuryRight Wrist InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryBus MaintainerRepetitive Motion
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. LBO 0324506
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

MICHELLE B. COSTA vs. KERLAN-JOBE ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding of industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral shoulders. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the injury claim during the specified employment period, noting discrepancies in the applicant's work dates and duties. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on the shoulder injury issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryBilateral ShouldersSurgery SchedulerCumulative TraumaQualified Medical EvaluatorApportionmentFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micoli v. City of Lockport

Robert J. Micoli, a carpenter, was injured on September 11, 1996, at a worksite owned by the City of Lockport and City of Lockport Housing Authority. While constructing a scaffold, a 200-pound aluminum pick fell and struck him on the shoulder. The Supreme Court granted Micoli's motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), as he was struck by an object being improperly hoisted to a level above his working level. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal.

Scaffold AccidentFalling ObjectConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentWorker SafetyPersonal InjuryAppellate DecisionThird-Party DefendantEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ball v. New Era Cap Co.

Claimant, a seamstress, sought workers' compensation benefits for lower back, neck, shoulder, and arm pain, attributing her injuries to repetitive work motions. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a causally related occupational disease, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer appealed, contesting both the causal link between claimant's work and her condition, and the timeliness of the filed claims. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that substantial medical evidence supported the finding of a compensable occupational disease. The court also dismissed the employer's argument regarding untimely filing, noting that the claims were submitted within the statutory two-year period from the dates of disablement.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive motion injuryBack painNeck painShoulder painArm painSeamstressCausationTimelinessMedical evidence
References
7
Case No. 526796
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Matter of Barker v. New York City Police Dept.

Claimant Nielda Barker, an evidence property control specialist for the New York City Police Department for 29 years, filed a workers' compensation claim in November 2016 for injuries to her shoulders, bicep, elbow, wrist, and forearm. She attributed these injuries to repetitive overhead activities and lifting heavy objects. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied her claim, finding she did not sustain an occupational disease or a repetitive stress accidental injury. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this determination, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court found that neither the claimant's testimony nor the medical evidence sufficiently established a recognizable link between her injuries and a distinctive feature of her work, or that the conditions resulted from unusual environmental circumstances.

Occupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsRepetitive Stress InjuryShoulder InjuriesEvidence Property Control SpecialistPolice DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceCausally-RelatedMedical Evidence
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03427 [205 AD3d 1287]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Bonet v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant, David Bonet, who worked for the New York City Transit Authority for 29 years, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging repetitive stress injuries to his neck and shoulders after retiring in November 2019. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, finding insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between his work activities and the occupational disease. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's treating physician lacked adequate knowledge of Bonet's specific job duties and that the required causal relationship was not supported by substantial evidence. The decision emphasizes the need for medical proof to signify a probability of the underlying cause supported by a rational basis, not just general possibility.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuriesCausal ConnectionMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating Physician TestimonyJob DutiesNeck and Shoulder Pain
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 10,278 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