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
Nov 18, 1988

Claim of Valverde v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

The claimant was injured in a fall while working as a superintendent in a New York City apartment house. The central issue in this appeal was whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in finding that the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) was the claimant's employer, making them responsible for workers' compensation. HPD had successfully initiated a special proceeding to appoint a '7A Administrator' for the premises, who then managed the building and supervised the claimant. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found both the administrator and HPD as employers, but the Board ultimately concluded HPD was the sole employer. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Board had ample basis to conclude HPD utilized the administrator as its agent, thereby qualifying as the claimant’s employer for Workers’ Compensation Law purposes.

Employer-employee relationship7A AdministratorAgencyWorkers' Compensation BoardBuilding managementHousing preservationAppellate DivisionSpecial employerGeneral employerFactual determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1997

Claim of Oord v. Estate of Zielinski

Claimant was injured while logging timber on land owned by the estate of Alexander H. Zielinski in Schenectady County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that decedent’s estate was a contractor under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56. The estate, through its executor Walter Zielinski, appealed this decision, arguing it did not own the timber after selling its rights and did not have a direct contract with Subik, claimant’s employer. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusions that the estate owned the timber when the claimant was injured and had an agreement with Subik. Therefore, the award of workers’ compensation benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationContractor LiabilityTimber LoggingEstate LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardProperty OwnershipHazardous Employment
References
5
Case No. SBR 0325667
Regular
Apr 29, 2008

JAMES PERRINE vs. THE TIRE GUYS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant who sustained an industrial injury to his right elbow and upper extremity, resulting in work restrictions despite a 0% whole person impairment rating under AMA guidelines. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant is a Qualified Injured Worker (QIW) entitled to vocational rehabilitation services. The Board found that the applicant's work restrictions constitute an impairment of earning capacity and a competitive handicap, thus qualifying him for benefits under former Labor Code section 4635(a).

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardCompromise and Releasevocational rehabilitationqualified injured worker (QIW)VRMApermanent disabilityAMA GuidelinesLabor Code 139.5Labor Code 4635
References
8
Case No. SFO 0500209
Regular
Jul 01, 2008

LAVENDER GALVAO vs. KINKO'S, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the prior award to allow the employer a credit against Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) for wages earned by the applicant from subsequent employment. While the applicant was found to be a Qualified Injured Worker (QIW) entitled to vocational rehabilitation services and VRMA, the Board distinguished this case from *Gamble v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding that the applicant's subsequent employment replaced her injured position rather than being concurrent. Therefore, allowing the credit prevents the applicant from receiving a windfall and is consistent with the wage-loss basis of temporary disability indemnity.

Qualified Injured WorkerVocational Rehabilitation ServicesVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMATemporary Disability RateCredit for Wages EarnedWage Loss BasisRehabilitation UnitFindings Order AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Capodagli v. West Seneca Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a to a claimant's award of benefits. The claimant was injured in October 2003, received benefits, and the case was closed. The employer later sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund requested claimant's testimony regarding advance payments of compensation, which was denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, who determined liability shifted. The Board affirmed. The appellate court found that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the record lacked information on whether the claimant performed light or limited duties while receiving full wages, which could prevent the shifting of liability. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 25-aAdvance PaymentsLiability ShiftMedical TreatmentLight Duty WorkSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. Reicon Group, LLC

Claimant, a dock builder, was injured and sought state workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested the Workers’ Compensation Board's jurisdiction, asserting that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) was applicable and a waiver of federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113 was required. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found concurrent jurisdiction between state law and the LHWCA for land-based injuries, rendering a § 113 waiver unnecessary. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that § 113 applies only where a federal scheme preempts state remedies, which is not the case with LHWCA. The court also highlighted that concurrent jurisdiction prevents double recovery.

Concurrent JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWorkers’ Compensation BoardAdmiralty LawFederal PreemptionWaiver of Federal RightsLand-Based InjuriesDock BuilderDouble RecoveryJones Act
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 24,238 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