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

Claim of Good v. Town of Brutus

A claimant, employed as a court clerk since 2002, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. She was awarded a 25% schedule loss of use of the left hand. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier sought apportionment of liability with her two most recent prior employers under Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding no medical evidence of the condition arising from prior employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, stating that despite the claimant experiencing symptoms previously and an independent medical examiner suggesting apportionment, there was no objective medical proof that she contracted the condition while working for a previous employer. The court emphasized that the focus for apportionment is whether the claimant contracted the occupational disease during that specific employment.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 44Prior EmployersMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminerSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutherland v. City of New York

Norrel Sutherland, a dock builder, was injured on a job site while operating a defective winch motor for Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., his employer. He subsequently filed actions against the City of New York, its departments, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Pile Foundation, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law, Jones Act, and LHWCA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against Pile under LHWCA and Jones Act, and some Labor Law claims against the City, but denied dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its prior determinations. Sutherland and the City appealed. This appellate court dismisses several appeals and cross-appeals, upholds the dismissal of Jones Act and Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims, and modifies the prior order to grant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. The court extensively discusses the "dual capacity" employer liability under LHWCA, affirming that Pile's alleged negligence related to employer functions, not vessel owner functions, thus granting Pile immunity. The final decision is to modify and affirm the prior orders.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActJones Act ClaimsLabor Law ClaimsDual Capacity DoctrineVessel Owner NegligenceEmployer ImmunitySummary Judgment AppealConstruction Site SafetyDefective EquipmentMaritime Worker Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2009

Claim of Ceplo v. Raymond Corp.

A claimant sustained a work-related injury in 1998 and received workers’ compensation benefits. In 2002, the self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing a prior injury under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). However, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the employer's claim for reimbursement, ruling that the required C-250 form had been inadequately completed, specifically lacking crucial details about the prior injury and its associated workers' compensation claim. The employer and its third-party administrator subsequently appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to the prescribed regulations for claims seeking reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementForm C-250Prior InjuryStrict ComplianceAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilitySelf-insured
References
3
Case No. ADJ10327919
Regular
Nov 08, 2019

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. BARON HR, LLC, BISON DATA SYSTEMS, INC., THE HARTFORD, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the service date of a prior Board decision. The Board will correct the service date from October 8, 2019, to November 8, 2019. Separately, the defendant insurer sought reconsideration of a prior award, arguing fraud in the contractual relationship between employers and that insurance coverage disputes are subject to arbitration. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision, clarifying that the WCJ should determine employer identity, while insurance coverage issues may proceed to arbitration.

Professional Employer OrganizationPEOLabor Code section 3602(d)general and special employmentjoint and several liabilityarbitrationLabor Code section 5275clerical errorPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bryce v. Shipyard

A claimant for the employer suffered occupational binaural hearing loss over 48 years of employment, initially estimated at 40%. A federal claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was rejected on procedural grounds in 1950. After retirement in 1958, a state claim was filed, leading to a Workmen’s Compensation Board finding of 47% hearing loss. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing prior disability and federal pre-emption. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, applying the "twilight zone" rule and stating that the prior federal claim's procedural rejection did not preclude state jurisdiction.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationLongshoremen's ActJurisdictionTwilight Zone RuleFederal PreemptionSchedule AwardTimelinessNotice RequirementsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1978

Di Bernardo v. Heimroth

This appeal arises from an order denying an employer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heimroth. The central legal question addresses whether an employer can be held liable to a third-party tort-feasor for their own negligence, even though Workers' Compensation Law generally bars direct employee actions against the employer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, reiterating that Workers' Compensation Law does not serve as a complete defense for an employer in actions involving a third-party tort-feasor's independent negligence. The prior ruling in Di Bernardo v Heimroth was cited as establishing a basis for employer contribution to a third-party tort-feasor, a point found to be dispositive of the current appeal.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party Tort-feasorEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewSection 29Workers' Compensation Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2010

Claim of Gardner v. Triple R Transport, Inc.

The claimant, a truck driver, was injured in 1999 while working for the employer. The employer's workers' compensation carrier contested the existence of an employer-employee relationship and, subsequently, the calculation of the claimant's average weekly wage. The Workers' Compensation Board determined there was an employer-employee relationship and set the average weekly wage based on the claimant's gross income. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the wage should be based on net income after employment-related tax deductions. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to review the claimant's tax deductions or explain its deviation from prior precedent regarding necessary expenses. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageGross IncomeNet IncomeTax DeductionsEmployer-Employee RelationshipRemittalFactual DeterminationPrecedentTruck Driver
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1997

In re the Claim of Mustaqur Rahman

The claimant, employed by a temporary agency for six months, resigned alleging co-worker harassment. He admitted not discussing his concerns with the employer prior to resigning. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, noting that continuing work and reassignment options were available had he informed the employer. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing that co-worker conflicts do not constitute good cause for leaving employment, especially when the employer is not notified beforehand.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseHarassmentEmployer NotificationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCo-worker ConflictDisqualificationEmployment Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hardy v. TRICO

The case involves appeals from the Workers' Compensation Board's decisions, which mandated employers' workers' compensation carriers to deposit funds into the aggregate trust fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (2). Claimants sustained permanent partial disabilities prior to a 2007 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), meaning their benefits were not capped. However, since the awards were made on or after July 1, 2007, carriers were required to make the full payment. The employers and their carriers appealed these directives, but the court affirmed the Board's decisions, citing prior rejections of similar arguments.

Workers' Compensation Law § 27Permanent Partial DisabilityAggregate Trust FundStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review2007 AmendmentInsurance CarriersEmployer LiabilityJudicial PrecedentBoard Decisions
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 15,697 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