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
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Board of Estimate

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding initiated by The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York and other city entities, along with Con-Agg Recycling Corp. Coca-Cola challenged the Board of Estimate's approval of Con-Agg's concrete recycling business in The Bronx and an amendment to the urban renewal plan, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The core issue was whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) or the Board of Estimate was the proper 'lead agency' responsible for assessing the environmental impact. The trial court and Appellate Division found that DEP's issuance of a conditional negative declaration, rather than the Board of Estimate making the final environmental policy decision, violated SEQRA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 'lead agency' with principal responsibility for approving an action must also determine its significant environmental effect, and Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 was invalidly applied to the extent it diminished this responsibility.

Environmental ReviewSEQRALead AgencyConditional Negative DeclarationUrban Renewal PlanArticle 78 ProceedingGovernmental Decision MakingEnvironmental Impact StatementPolicy DecisionMayoral Executive Order No. 91
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutton Area Community v. Board of Estimate

This case addresses a challenge by petitioners against the Board of Estimate's approval of a major private development in Manhattan. The core issue revolves around a last-minute change in the designated sewage treatment plant from Ward's Island to Newtown Creek, the latter lacking secondary treatment and operating over capacity. The court found that this eleventh-hour correction, three days before the Board's vote, deprived the public and relevant agencies of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the significant environmental impacts related to sewage disposal. Citing violations of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with environmental review procedures. Consequently, the judgment confirming the Board of Estimate's determination was reversed, and the Board's approval of the project was nullified.

Environmental LawSEQRASewage DisposalAdministrative Agency ActionPublic ParticipationEnvironmental Impact StatementJudicial Review of Agency DecisionsUrban PlanningRegulatory ComplianceWater Pollution
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1996

In Re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.

Stuart L. Kreisler, the debtor's former chief executive officer, moved to have his claim against Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc. (RLW) estimated for voting purposes in RLW's plan of reorganization. Kreisler argued most of his claim, arising from postpetition termination, was an administrative expense, with a smaller unsecured claim. The debtor, RLW, denied any claim. Chief Judge Tina L. Brozman conducted an evidentiary hearing to estimate the claim due to time constraints before the confirmation hearing. The court determined that Kreisler's severance claim would likely be allowed as a postpetition quantum meruit administrative expense, estimating his prepetition unsecured claim related to unpaid bonus at $279,000, and the severance portion of his prepetition claim at zero. The ruling also addressed disputes concerning EBIT calculation for bonus determination and the allocation of the bonus between pre- and post-petition periods.

BankruptcyClaim EstimationSeverance PayAdministrative ExpenseQuantum MeruitEmployment AgreementDebtor ReorganizationPostpetition ClaimPrepetition ClaimBonus Calculation
References
13
Case No. ADJ1521645 (RIV 082425)
Regular
Jan 22, 2015

SILVESTRE LOPEZ TRUJILLO vs. TORRES FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOME STATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a decision regarding lien claimant Monrovia Memorial Hospital's claim for additional payment for services rendered to applicant Silvestre Lopez Trujillo. Although Monrovia Memorial Hospital is a long-term acute care hospital exempt from standard fee schedules and entitled to reasonable cost basis payment, it failed to prove its billed amount was reasonable. The WCAB found the hospital's claimed charges of $149,382.54 were grossly disproportionate to the $34,611.32 estimate for comparable services at another facility. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the original findings and substituted new ones, finding the hospital was reasonably compensated and not entitled to further payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineLong-Term Acute Care HospitalFee Schedule ExemptionReasonable Cost BasisBurden of ProofMedical Bill Coding
References
2
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

The dissenting opinion concerns a wrongful death case where Milton Rivera was struck and killed by a subway train after falling from a platform on January 11, 1980. The plaintiff alleged the train's speed was excessive and the motorman delayed braking. Plaintiff's expert estimated the train speed at 19-22 mph and suggested the motorman had ample time to react. The defendant's expert concurred on speed but argued it was reasonable and necessary due to a track incline, and that the relevant transit rule did not apply to passenger trains. The dissent argued for reversal of the judgment, citing four main errors: the trial court's refusal to charge on emergency situation law, the jury's verdict being against the weight of evidence due to speculative expert testimony, the improper introduction of over 150 transit rules without guidance (including an inadmissible one), and an excessive $2 million award for wrongful death which deviated from reasonable compensation based on the deceased's earnings and life expectancy.

Wrongful DeathSubway AccidentExcessive SpeedMotorman NegligenceJury InstructionsEmergency DoctrineExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceTransit Authority RulesExcessive Damages
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. ADJ7112948
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

LYLE BYNUM vs. VALLEJO TRANSIT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the defendant's attorney and insurance company for alleged bad faith actions. These actions included filing a petition for reconsideration with inaccurate and unsupported references to evidence, misrepresenting medical opinions, and asserting meritless contentions. The WCAB is considering sanctions of up to $2,000 and reasonable expenses due to these alleged violations of labor code and board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Findings and AwardWCJBus DriverBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ802221
Significant
May 21, 2014

Warren Brower, Applicant vs. David Jones Construction, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This en banc decision holds that when temporary disability payments cease due to the statutory 104-week cap, permanent disability indemnity payments must commence based on a reasonable estimate, even if the injured worker is not yet permanent and stationary. If the worker is later found to be permanently totally disabled, the payments are adjusted retroactively to the permanent total disability rate.

En banc decisionReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary total disabilityPermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Labor Code section 4650(b)Cost of living adjustments (COLAs)Agreed medical evaluator (AME)Treating physician
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 4,384 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