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

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedman

This case examines whether claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits for a week in July during which they received vacation pay from their employer. The court references a previous decision, *Matter of Miranda* (Catherwood), which allowed such benefits under certain conditions. However, the court highlights that subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law was amended in 1963 specifically to correct inequities and prevent employees from receiving both vacation pay and unemployment benefits for the same period. Despite the board's finding that the union agreement did not designate a vacation period, the court interpreted the agreement's clauses as designating the first week in July for vacation. The court concluded that upholding the board's original decision would undermine the legislative intent of the 1963 amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVacation PayLabor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCollective Bargaining AgreementBoard Decision ReversalRemandWorkers' RightsEmployer Obligations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cagle v. Judge Motor Corp.

The claimant, on behalf of her deceased father's estate, appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had denied the claimant's request to reopen two workers' compensation claims—one for a back injury from 1988 and a consequential death claim from 1990, and another from 1993 alleging death due to occupational stress. The Board found the requests untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 28 and 123, ruling that both claims were "truly closed" and beyond the seven-year reopening period. The claimant argued that a prescription drug benefit card sent by the State Insurance Fund constituted an advanced payment of compensation, thereby waiving the time constraints, and that her mother was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in prior proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the claims were properly closed, the prescription card was issued in error and did not revive the time-barred claim, and ample notice and opportunity to be heard had been provided.

Workers' CompensationClaim ReopeningAppealTimeliness BarStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Workers' Compensation Law § 28Advanced Payment of CompensationBoard JurisdictionEstate Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Baghai-Kermani

This case concerns an appeal from two Supreme Court orders regarding a defendant's conviction for criminal sale of prescription for a controlled substance. The trial court initially granted the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to set aside his conviction due to Rosario material violations, but denied his motion on jurisdictional grounds. On appeal, the higher court modified the Rosario order, reinstating most of the convictions, arguing that the Rosario violation for two counts did not necessarily taint the entire indictment. The court affirmed the denial of the jurisdictional motion, holding that the Attorney-General had broad jurisdiction under Executive Law § 63 (3) to prosecute the defendant for offenses connected with Medicaid, despite the defendant no longer being a Medicaid provider.

Criminal Sale of Controlled SubstanceCPL 440.10Rosario MaterialBrady v MarylandJurisdictionExecutive Law § 63 (3)Medicaid FraudAppellate ReviewBench TrialSelf-representation
References
6
Case No. ADJ918935 (GOL 0095045) ADJ494988 (GOL 0095046)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

BONNIE JOHNSON vs. ALBERTSON'S, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision, affirming the imposition of a 25% penalty against Albertson's for unreasonably denying payment for the applicant's prescription Imitrex. The Board clarified that the penalty period for the denied medical treatment is from March 2008 to August 18, 2008. Additionally, the Board affirmed the applicant's entitlement to attorney fees related to enforcing this compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlbert's Inc.Specialty Risk ServicesJoint Findings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5814PenaltyPrescriptionImitrexPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ 1387363 (SBR 0269737) ADJ2131808 (SBR 0276089) ADJ2394028 (SBR 0337198)
Regular
Jul 06, 2016

FRIEDA WILLIAMS vs. MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR, AIG/CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award finding Montgomery Elevator liable for unreasonably delayed home health care services for Frieda Williams. The Board found that the defendant received a prescription for home health care more than 14 days before the specified treatment period, establishing their liability. Penalties and attorney's fees were upheld due to the defendant's failure to provide necessary care despite prior stipulations and medical recommendations. The Board also affirmed applicant's standing to collect on behalf of her family caregiver.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings of FactAward and OrdersWCJHome Health CareUnreasonable DelayPenalty24 Hour Home Health CareSelf-Procured Services
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ1968745; ADJ3771069; ADJ1711136
Regular
Aug 04, 2025

PETER WATSON vs. FPL ENERGY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by The Prescription Center Pharmacy. The petition challenged a Findings and Order from August 29, 2022, concerning the disallowance of medication charges for applicant Peter Watson. The Board applied equitable tolling to the statutory 60-day period for acting on the petition due to administrative delays in receiving the case file, ensuring a decision on the merits. The Board ultimately concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for reopening discovery, willful suppression of evidence by the defendant FPL Energy, or the medical necessity for many of the disallowed medications, based on the findings of Agreed Medical Examiner Dr. Mark Hyman.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationEquitable TollingLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Due ProcessSubstantial JusticeFindings and AwardPrescription Center PharmacyAdverse Inference
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,374 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