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
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santigate v. Linsalata

The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion to dismiss the defendants’ fourth affirmative defense and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. The injured plaintiff, a student teacher, sustained injuries at a high school operated by the defendant Half Hollow Hills Central School District. The central issue was whether the plaintiff was an employee of the school district, precluding a personal injury action due to workers' compensation coverage. The appellate court found the relevant Workers’ Compensation Law statutes ambiguous regarding the plaintiff's employment status and eligibility for benefits. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have deferred the determination of employment status to the Workers’ Compensation Board, as it is primarily a question of fact for the Board to resolve. The order was reversed, and the matter remitted for a new determination following a prompt application to the Workers’ Compensation Board to clarify the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStudent TeacherEmployment StatusAppellate ProcedurePrimary JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentRemittalNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paiz v. Coastal Pipeline Products Corp.

Claimant, injured while working as a laborer, sought double workers' compensation benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a (1) on the grounds that he was a minor employed in violation of labor law. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied these increased benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board later concluded that the claimant was indeed a minor at the time of injury and continued the case for proper compensation. The employer appealed this Board decision. However, the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board’s decision was interlocutory and nonappealable because it did not resolve all substantive issues, thus precluding an immediate appeal.

Workers' CompensationMinor EmploymentDouble IndemnityIllegal EmploymentAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory OrderNon-Appealable DecisionLabor LawBoard RulingJudicial Review
References
2
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00139 [212 AD3d 972]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2023

Matter of Ceja v. Manetta Enters., Inc.

Claimant Pablo Figueroa Ceja filed for workers' compensation benefits after being injured while working for Manetta Enterprises, Inc. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) disputed coverage, claiming policy cancellation for nonpayment. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found SIF liable, ruling that SIF failed to strictly adhere to Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) by not sending a separate cancellation notice to Manetta, despite sharing an address with a related entity, Manco Enterprises of NY, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the statutory requirement for individual notice to each insured entity unless a specific designee is appointed, and rejected SIF's new arguments regarding claimant's employment status as not properly preserved for appeal.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationDual Entity PolicyAdministrative Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the employment status of a decedent. The decedent, a staff physician at Bellevue Hospital, was murdered. Her husband, the claimant, filed a wrongful death action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC), which operated Bellevue. NYCHHC argued it was the decedent's special employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that New York University Medical Center (NYU) was the decedent's sole employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, citing substantial evidence that NYU provided all professional services at Bellevue, employed and supervised the physicians, and controlled the details of their work, even though NYCHHC had general hospital oversight. The court reiterated that when evidence supports both general and special employment, the ultimate determination is a question of fact for the Board, and its decision stands if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityWrongful Death ActionPhysician EmploymentHospital Affiliation AgreementSubstantial EvidenceQuestion of FactJudicial Review
References
7
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
Apr 01, 2005

Hernandez v. Excel Recycling Corp.

The claimant was injured in August 2003 while working for Excel Recycling Corporation and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. During a hearing, the claimant admitted to purchasing a Social Security card to gain employment in the United States. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for the claimant's injuries and awarded benefits. The employer, Excel, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing that benefits should be denied due to the claimant's undocumented alien status under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). The Board denied the application, stating that the IRCA issue was not raised before the WCLJ. The carrier then appealed this denial, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider an issue not timely raised at the WCLJ hearing, particularly since the carrier's argument was fact-dependent and its defense could be waived.

Workers' Compensation LawImmigration Reform and Control ActUndocumented WorkersPreemption DoctrineWaiver of DefensesAdministrative ProcedureAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial DiscretionEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mihalaris v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

A limousine driver, who leased his vehicle from Augie’s Auto Repair, Inc. (Augie) and was dispatched by UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. (UTOG), was assaulted and injured during a vehicle theft while working. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the driver a general employee of Augie and a special employee of UTOG, apportioning liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding the driver solely an employee of UTOG, discharging Augie based on an interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (4) regarding lessor/owner control. UTOG and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board misapplied the law concerning taxicab drivers, contending the control-related factors only apply when the owner operates the taxicab 40+ hours weekly. The Appellate Court reversed the Board's decision, stating the Board incorrectly applied the statute by requiring control factors for Augie when the 40-hour exception was not met, and remitted the matter for a decision consistent with the controlling statute.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployment RelationshipLimousine DriverTaxicab DriversStatutory InterpretationLessor-Lessee RelationshipGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemand
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 24,657 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