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

Gentile v. Nulty

Police Officer Steven Gentile sued his employers, Kevin A. Nulty (Chief of Police) and the Town of Orangetown, alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York General Municipal Law § 207-c.l. Gentile claimed defendants continually denied him workers' compensation benefits in retaliation for previous legal actions to secure those benefits related to two work-related injuries: post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing Gentile waived his rights by paying doctors directly and that they preserved their right to challenge liability. The court denied defendants' motions, finding Gentile had not waived his rights and defendants had not preserved their right to challenge liability, and stated an inclination to grant partial summary judgment to Gentile on the issue of liability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPolice Officer RightsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c.lRetaliatory ActionsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentWaiver of RightsSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fuentes v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dated November 15, 2006. The Board had transferred liability for a claimant's 1998 work-related back injury to the Special Fund, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued that certain payments made to the claimant in late 2005, between November 30 and December 17, were advance payments of compensation, which would preclude the transfer of liability. However, the Board found that these payments were charged to the claimant's accumulated sick leave and did not constitute advance payments of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that the sick leave payments did not prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund because they were not made voluntarily in recognition of employer liability, and thus, the criteria for transferring liability to the Special Fund were met.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave PlanLiability TransferStale ClaimApplication to Reopen ClaimWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryTreating Physician Report
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Porter v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

The claimant, who sustained head, neck, and back injuries in 2004, had a workers' compensation case established for occupational disease, with 22.5% liability for neck and back injuries apportioned to the incident. After experiencing continued back problems and being diagnosed with severe biforaminal stenosis, the Chair authorized an MRI in 2010 and lumbar spine surgery in 2011. The workers’ compensation carrier sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, a request initially denied by a WCLJ but granted by the Board, which found the April 27, 2011 order authorizing surgery constituted a 'true closing' of the case. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the transfer of liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the case was truly closed, thereby shifting liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftClosed CaseTrue ClosingMedical AuthorizationLumbar Spine SurgeryCervical Spine MRIOccupational DiseaseApportionment
References
8
Case No. 526688
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Bufearon v. City of Rochester Bur. of Empl. Relations

Claimant Kamren Bufearon sustained work-related injuries in a motor vehicle collision on March 4, 2016, for which his workers' compensation claim was established for injuries to his left shoulder, left hip, and lower back. Subsequently, he sought to amend his claim to include a causally-related cervical spine injury, which was initially approved by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant failed to sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between his cervical spine condition and the March 4, 2016 incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the medical testimony from two physicians contained conflicting findings and equivocal narratives regarding causation. The court concluded that the Board was entitled to reject the physicians' opinions as speculative, particularly since neither physician had reviewed the claimant's prior medical records for a pre-existing cervical spine fusion surgery.

Cervical spine injuryCausal relationshipMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardPre-existing conditionCredibility of physiciansBurden of proofMotor vehicle accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Wetterau v. Canada Dry

The claimant sustained two work-related back injuries in 1999 and 2005 while working for the same employer. The 1999 claim was closed in 2000, and the 2005 claim resulted in a permanent partial disability classification, with the carrier making ongoing payments. Both claims were reopened to determine apportionment and the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a to the 1999 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for the 1999 claim shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, finding no advance payment of compensation by the carrier on the 2005 claim attributable to the 1999 injury. The Board concluded that the two injuries were distinctly different, and the carrier was not on notice that payments for the 2005 claim encompassed the 1999 claim. This decision to shift liability was affirmed on appeal, without costs.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aLiability ShiftAdvance Payment of CompensationApportionmentPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryAnkle InjuryPreexisting ConditionSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2000

Claim of Davis v. T.J. Madden Construction Co.

Claimant suffered two work-related knee injuries in 1988 and 1992, leading to separate compensation cases. In April 1999, an application to reopen the 1988 case was filed, supported by a medical report indicating a change in the claimant's condition. The carrier for the 1988 case sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and requested reopening of the 1992 case. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Law Judge's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability and placing Travelers Property Casualty (1992 carrier) back on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the April 1999 medical report, despite explicitly referencing only the 1988 case, constituted sufficient notice to reopen the interconnected 1992 case within the seven-year statutory period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftStatute of LimitationsMedical Report as NoticeChange in ConditionKnee InjuryApportionmentBoard DecisionAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fischer v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, retired in April 2006 after establishing two work-related back injuries in 1998 and 2001. In 2008, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant permanently partially disabled with a 50% earning capacity and transferred liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Subsequently, another WCLJ found claimant's withdrawal from the labor market involuntary due to his causally-related disability, made awards retroactive to his retirement date, and transferred liability back to the carrier. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding claimant's retirement was a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a applied. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, stating it was based on an erroneous finding regarding medical treatment records, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketPermanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalMedical EvidenceRemittalBack InjuryDelivery DriverRetroactive Awards
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1991

Claim of Ingham v. Oswego County

The claimant, a nursing assistant for Oswego County, sustained multiple injuries, including to the knee, back, wrist, and head, in an August 1979 accident while assisting a client. Over time, the claimant's condition deteriorated, leading to permanent total disability. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related disability for the knee and wrist, later amending it to include the low back and consequential obesity. The self-insured employer, Oswego County, appealed this decision, arguing the back injury claim was untimely and that the disability should be apportioned due to the claimant's prior back history and obesity. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, rejecting the County’s arguments by finding a waiver of the timeliness objection and substantial evidence supporting the aggravation of preexisting conditions as causally related to the 1979 accident, leading to total disability.

Permanent Total DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityAggravation of Preexisting ConditionWaiver of Section 28 DefenseTimeliness of Claim ObjectionConflicting Medical EvidenceSpinal InjuryObesity-Related DisabilityJoint InjuryEmployer Self-Insured
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 9,643 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