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

In re Rose B.

The Ulster County Commissioner of Social Services appealed an order from the Family Court of Ulster County that dismissed a petition alleging a child, Rose R., was abused and neglected by her father. The appeal stemmed from observations by school staff of numerous injuries on Rose R., which she attributed to beatings. Initially, the Family Court found insufficient evidence. The appellate court, however, reversed the decision regarding neglect, finding that the Commissioner had established by a preponderance of credible evidence that Rose R.'s physical and emotional condition was impaired due to the father's unreasonable infliction of harm and failure to provide minimum care. The matter was remitted to Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidencePhysical HarmEmotional ImpairmentParental CareChild Protection
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. Sanchez

This posttrial motion concerns a jury's verdict that continued psychiatric care was not essential for petitioner Calvin Robinson, despite finding him mentally ill. Justice Suarez determined the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's finding regarding the need for continued care and treatment. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Robinson is mentally ill, poses a danger to himself and others, and his judgment is impaired, rendering him unable to understand his need for care. Robinson has a long history of self-harm, assaultive behavior, and medication non-compliance when unsupervised, contradicting his general denials. Consequently, the court set aside the jury's verdict and affirmed the original retention order, mandating his continued involuntary psychiatric care.

Mental IllnessInvoluntary CommitmentPsychiatric InstitutionPosttrial MotionJury Verdict Set AsideSufficiency of EvidenceDanger to SelfDanger to OthersImpaired JudgmentMedication Non-compliance
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. A. Servidone, Inc.

Robert Rose, an employee of Orange and Rockland Utilities, was injured on August 21, 1995, while stepping off a truck onto uneven ground at a construction site. He and his wife, Lenora Rose, sued A. Servidone, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. Servidone subsequently initiated a third-party action against Orange and Rockland Utilities. The Supreme Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Servidone, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Servidone lacked control over Rose's specific activity for the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims. It also found that stepping from a truck onto uneven ground did not constitute an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), and no pertinent Industrial Code regulations were violated for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Construction Site SafetySafe Place to Work DoctrineGeneral Contractor LiabilityEmployer ControlElevation-Related Hazards
References
4
Case No. VNO 539067
Regular
Jan 28, 2008

ROSE ROBINSON vs. AMERICAN WELLNESS \& IMAGING, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a finding of industrial injury for Rose Robinson. The applicant was raped by her employer's CEO under circumstances deemed a "sudden and extraordinary" employment event, thus bypassing the six-month employment requirement for psychiatric injuries. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant credible and the injury compensable as it arose out of and occurred in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRose RobinsonAmerican Wellness & ImagingAIG Claims ServicesOrder Denying ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment eventpsychic disturbancesrapeemployer's CEO
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Joseph Rose (plaintiff) filed a class action against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and Northwestern Mutual Investment Securities LLC (defendants), alleging minimum wage and overtime violations under New York Labor Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Rose was an independent contractor and thus exempt from state labor laws, and that there was no relationship with NMIS. The court found that Rose was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on factors such as his contract designation, lack of fixed work schedule or supervision by Northwestern Mutual, and absence of fringe benefits or hourly wages. The court also determined there was no relationship between Rose and NMIS. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Independent Contractor StatusEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertime ViolationsInsurance AgentsClass ActionControl TestFringe Benefits
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04249 [172 AD3d 1848]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Matter of D'Altorio (Clare Rose, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns 104 striking employees of Clare Rose, Inc., including James D'Altorio, who filed for unemployment insurance benefits after their employer hired permanent replacement workers. The Department of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that these claimants were eligible for benefits and not subject to the typical seven-week suspension period under Labor Law § 592 (1). This decision was based on the employer's failure to provide written certification assuring striking employees of their return to work upon the strike's conclusion, despite hiring permanent replacements. Clare Rose, Inc. appealed these findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimants were indeed eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrike BenefitsIndustrial ControversyPermanent Replacement WorkersLabor Law § 592 (1)Unemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionEligibility for BenefitsStriking EmployeesEmployer Certification
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05652 [164 AD3d 1000]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2018

Matter of Robinson v. Workmen's Circle Home

Barbara Robinson, a certified nurse's assistant, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for a work-related right shoulder injury in 2011. She received temporary disability payments totaling $133,807.48. In 2016, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded her a 42.50% schedule loss of use (SLU) to her right arm, amounting to $102,494.50, less prior payments. Robinson appealed the WCLJ's decision, arguing that the employer's carrier should not be credited for temporary partial disability payments against the SLU award. The Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, ruling that the carrier could credit all prior disability payments. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to differentiate between temporary total and temporary partial disability payments for credit purposes, thereby preventing an unjustifiable double recovery for the claimant.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Disability PaymentsCreditDouble RecoveryAppellate DivisionWork-Related InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryCarrier ReimbursementLegal Precedent
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02960
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Robinson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

Jacqueline Robinson appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her request to reclassify her disability from permanent partial to temporary total following back surgery. Established with a permanent partial disability in 2015 for a 2009 work-related back injury, Robinson underwent back surgery in June 2018 and sought reclassification. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded temporary total disability payments for the post-surgery period up to the hearing date but reverted to permanent partial thereafter. The Board affirmed, finding no evidence that the surgery worsened her condition or caused "other trauma" or "significant reinjury." The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial record evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityDisability ReclassificationBack InjurySurgical ImpactMedical Evidence ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWage-Earning CapacityAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rose v. Brickel Ass'n

Leonard Rose, national sales manager for Brickel Association, died of a heart attack while walking to an appointment in frigid weather. His widow, the claimant, received a check from the employer along with a note indicating a workers' compensation claim had been filed. Relying on this, she delayed formal filing with the Workers' Compensation Board until March 1983, beyond the two-year limit. A WCLJ initially disallowed the claim, but the Board reversed, finding the payment and note constituted an advance payment waiving the time bar under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, and deemed the death causally related to his stressful work and extreme weather conditions. The employer appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing sufficient evidence for the advance payment of compensation and a causally related accidental injury.

Workers' CompensationAdvance PaymentTime Bar WaiverCausally Related DeathHeart AttackJob StressExtreme Weather ConditionsWidow's ClaimBoard ReversalAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 184 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