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. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. 533901
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Gambardella

In this workers' compensation appeal, claimant Vincent Gambardella challenged a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. Gambardella, a bus maintainer, sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2018. A WCLJ initially established permanent partial disability and schedule loss of use (SLU) awards, finding a 35% SLU of his left arm, 15.80% SLU of his right third finger, and a nonschedule permanent impairment of his lower back. Due to his voluntary retirement in April 2020, he was deemed ineligible for a nonschedule award but was granted an SLU award by the WCLJ. The Board reversed, asserting that SLU awards were only for claimants who returned to pre-injury wages. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that an SLU award is appropriate when no initial award is made based on a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification, regardless of whether the claimant returned to work or voluntarily retired. The court found that voluntary retirement, like returning to work at preinjury wages, precludes a nonschedule award, thus making the claimant eligible for an SLU award for his permanent impairments. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementWage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRemittalDuplicative CompensationLabor Market AttachmentImpairment Rating
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2007

Monzon v. Sam Bernard Construction Inc.

Claimant injured his foot in January 2004 and testified in February 2005 that he was unable to work since the accident. The employer requested an adjournment to present surveillance video allegedly showing claimant working, but the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) precluded the video due to non-disclosure before testimony. After claimant's counsel informed the WCB that claimant had returned to work, the Board rescinded payments made post-February 2005 hearing. The WCLJ found a compensable 30% loss of use of the foot. The employer sought review, alleging claimant made material misrepresentations violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board found no violation, attributing inconsistencies to translation issues and noting statements made after counsel advised of return to work were not for obtaining benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported no violation of § 114-a.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationsSurveillance Videotape PreclusionReturn to WorkTranslation InconsistenciesBenefit ForfeitureAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionLoss of UseCompensable Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patricka v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an employee of Montefiore Medical Center, was injured after tripping on a sidewalk maintained by Montefiore while returning to her office from the human resources department during working hours. Montefiore moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that even if the plaintiff's visit to HR was for a personal matter, her return to work during working hours on employer-maintained property made the incident fall under Workers' Compensation, thus granting Montefiore's motion.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentTrip and FallEmployment InjuryDual-Purpose ActivityEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewBronx CountyMontefiore Medical Center
References
2
Case No. 698 F.Supp. 452
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1988

Tunis v. Corning Glass Works

Catherine Tunis, a process engineer at Corning Glass, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a hostile work environment due to pinup photographs, gender-based language, and catcalls, and that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints and an EEOC filing. The court found that the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action regarding the hostile environment claims. Additionally, the court determined that Tunis failed to demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by Corning Glass for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, all of Tunis's claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentGender BiasWrongful TerminationFederal Lawsuit
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 10,858 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