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. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. CV-23-0719
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Bruce Matter

Claimant Bruce A. Matter, an account executive for Google Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury in October 2021 after being struck by motorized bicycles while returning from an employer-encouraged "Happy Hour" event. The employer and its carrier disputed the claim, arguing the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding a causal nexus due to the employer's derived benefit from the event and the altered travel risks it entailed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the employer benefited from the claimant's participation and that the event altered his usual travel, increasing the risk of injury.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCausal NexusSpecial Errand DoctrineDual-Purpose DoctrineEmployer BenefitOff-Premises AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryHappy Hour EventWork-Related Activity
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02469 [204 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Olszewski v. PAL Envtl. Safety Corp.

Claimant Albert Olszewski appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's disallowance of his 2017 claim for a work-related left arm injury. The Board had denied review because Olszewski failed to submit a separate application form for the 2017 claim, citing internal guidance. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review on this procedural ground. The court noted that the internal guidance outlined cost assessments as penalties, not outright denial of review, and the procedural requirement was not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceAbuse of DiscretionClaim DenialForm RequirementsJudiciary LawWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF MERSON v. McNally

The Court of Appeals addresses whether a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) can be issued for a Type I action, even when the project has been modified to accommodate environmental concerns. Reviewing two related cases, Matter of Merson v McNally and Matter of Philipstown Indus. Park v Town Bd., the Court examines a mining project by Philipstown Industrial Park, Inc. (PIP) in the Town of Philipstown, Putnam County. The Planning Board, acting as the lead agency, issued a negative declaration after PIP revised its plans in response to public and agency input regarding noise, traffic, and groundwater. The Appellate Division had annulled this declaration, viewing the modifications as impermissible 'conditioned negative declarations.' The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such project adjustments, made through an open and deliberative process to mitigate potential adverse effects, are a legitimate part of SEQRA review and do not invalidate a negative declaration. The cases are remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of unaddressed issues, including preemption.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationMined Land Reclamation LawType I ActionProject ModificationEnvironmental Impact StatementLead AgencyZoning LawAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06838
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Kariauli v. Weider

Claimant Omari Kariauli, an electrician, sustained injuries while working for Moshe Weider, an uninsured employer, leading to an established workers' compensation claim. Weider was denied the opportunity to testify at a hearing due to a slight delay and a clerk's actions, despite assurances of a future chance. After retaining new counsel, Weider sought a rehearing from the Workers' Compensation Board, which was denied due to perceived unreasonable delay. The Appellate Division reversed this denial, finding it an abuse of discretion given Weider's initial pro se status and the procedural errors that prevented his testimony, thus remitting the matter for further proceedings in the interest of justice.

Workers' Compensation LawRehearing ApplicationReopening of ClaimAbuse of DiscretionDue Process ViolationUninsured EmployerEmployee ClassificationScheduled Loss of UseAppellate ReviewPro Se Representation
References
7
Case No. No. 29-30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson; In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni

This opinion addresses two appeals concerning Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, specifically whether a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a subsequent injury to a subpart of an enumerated body "member" must be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same member. The Court of Appeals holds that WCL § 15 (7) allows for multiple SLU awards for successive injuries to the same statutory body member, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury, considered by itself, caused an increased loss of use. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Johnson v City of New York, finding that claimant Thomas Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence that his knee injuries caused a further loss of use of his legs beyond that addressed in a prior SLU award for hip injuries. Conversely, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Liuni v Gander Mountain, remitting the case for further proceedings because claimant Joseph D. Liuni did provide evidence that his later shoulder injury caused a distinct increase in the loss of use of his arm separate from a prior elbow injury. The decision clarifies the application of WCL § 15 (7) regarding successive SLU awards and the burden of proof on claimants.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentOffset RulePrior Disability CompensationEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
33
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. 533038
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Danielle Sequino

Claimant Danielle Sequino sustained numerous work-related injuries in 2007, leading to a classification of permanently totally disabled in 2011. The employer and its carrier objected to multiple medical bills, with a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) sustaining these objections in April 2020. The Workers' Compensation Board largely upheld this decision but held objections related to colitis treatment in abeyance. On appeal, the claimant challenged the Board's denial of 26 medical bills based on a lack of causal relationship to established conditions. The Appellate Division found that both the WCLJ and the Board failed to provide adequate reasoning or an evidentiary basis for their determinations, thus precluding proper appellate review. As a result, the court modified the Board's decisions, reversed the ruling on causal relationship for the disputed medical bills, and remitted the matter for further proceedings and a detailed explanation of its findings.

Workers' CompensationMedical BillsCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewRemittalPermanent Total DisabilityAdministrative LawEvidentiary RequirementsBoard DecisionsJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,025 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