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

Pierre v. Crown Fire Protection Corp.

This case involves appeals by Crown Fire Protection Corp. and PEM All Fire Extinguisher Corp. from a Supreme Court order denying their motions for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful death complaint asserted against them. The New York City Transit Authority also cross-appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss third-party complaints filed against it. The appellate court dismissed the appeals of Crown and PEM as withdrawn. Furthermore, the order was modified to grant the Transit Authority's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the third-party complaint of Crown Fire Protection Corp. The court determined that Crown's work, which involved delivery and installation of fire extinguisher devices, did not fall under the categories described in General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Finally, the decision clarified that a recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits third-party suits against employers, would not be applied retroactively to pending actions.

Wrongful Death DamagesSummary Judgment DenialThird-Party IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation AmendmentsStatutory Non-RetroactivityContractual IndemnityConstruction vs. InstallationAppellate ModificationDismissal of Appeals
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case, Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., was heard by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The decision was rendered on March 23, 2004. The outcome of the case was that the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued. This indicates a resolution where further judicial review was halted by the appellant.

Appeal WithdrawnDiscontinuedWorkers' CompensationCourt of AppealsNew YorkCase Resolution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06419 [222 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Martinez v. Eastchester Fire Dist.

Claimant Tina Martinez, a fire department lieutenant, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after contracting COVID-19 at work in December 2020. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, authorized medical treatment, and set her average weekly wage. The employer (Eastchester Fire District and its claims administrator) appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board but failed to serve claimant's new legal representative with the application for review, despite having notice of the substitution of counsel. The Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with service requirements under 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the employer's application for review based on defective service.

COVID-19 ClaimService RequirementsAppellate ReviewAdministrative AppealDue ProcessLegal RepresentationSubstitution of CounselBoard ReviewWCLJ DecisionEmployer Appeal
References
4
Case No. 2015-1094 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. against V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., an assignee, concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered between October 2009 and February 2010. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had properly mailed denial of claim forms and established that the amounts sought by the plaintiff exceeded the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the relevant parts of the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFee Schedule DefenseDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsAssignee RightsCivil Court Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1980

Claim of Higgins v. Ronkonkoma Fire District

A volunteer fireman sustained a wrist injury after slipping on a wet floor while performing hosting and bar-tending duties at a mandatory 75th-anniversary event for his fire district. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision, finding the injury occurred in the line of firemanic duties. The Board emphasized the mandatory nature of the claimant's attendance, his uniform, and the non-recreational nature of the dedication ceremony. This decision, finding substantial evidence, cited *Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept.* and *Matter of Myslborski v Greenport Fire Dist., Volunteer Firemen’s Co.* as precedent.

Volunteer FiremanWorkers' CompensationInjuryMandatory AttendanceFiremanic DutiesSlip and FallWrist InjuryBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFire District
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, 44 NY3d 45
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Dept.

This case addresses whether the City of Newburgh Fire Department can be reimbursed from workers' compensation benefits for payments made to a disabled firefighter, Adam Schulze, under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Schulze, a retired firefighter with performance of duty (POD) disability retirement, received supplemental payments from the City and workers' compensation awards. The City sought reimbursement, arguing its General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments constituted "salary or wages" or "payments to an employee in like manner as wages" under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 30 (2) or 25 (4) (a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reimbursement, holding that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are pension supplements, not wages, and are made to retired individuals, not employees. The Court clarified that the proper statutory mechanism for the employer to reduce duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a), which allows for the reduction of future General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments by the amount of workers' compensation awards.

Workers' CompensationFirefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsReimbursementPension SupplementsStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawCourt of AppealsPublic Employment
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07647
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of McCormick v. Terryville Fire Dist.

Claimant John McCormick, a paramedic, appealed from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Board had previously affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation against McCormick for failing to disclose a prior neck injury, leading to a mandatory penalty and disqualification from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, limiting its review to whether the denial was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The court found that McCormick failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider issues, thus upholding the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation Law114-a violationMaterial MisrepresentationIndemnity BenefitsReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01011 [169 AD3d 1477]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Matter of Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which had granted partial summary judgment to Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., et al., and 3679 River Road, Inc., et al. These parties were respondents and intervenors-respondents, respectively, while the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board and others were the appellants. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed the appeal. However, prior to a full merits decision, the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was a result of a stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for all parties involved on January 15, 2019.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentAppeal DismissalStipulation of DiscontinuanceOnondaga CountyJudiciary LawFourth DepartmentProceduralCase Dismissal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 36,945 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