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. 2024 NY Slip Op 05519 [232 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Herrera v. American Badge, Inc.

Claimant Patricio Herrera appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board which disallowed his claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he contracted COVID-19 during his employment as a manager at a badge factory. The Board found that Herrera failed to establish that his COVID-19 contraction was work-related, despite his testimony and that of his treating physician regarding symptom onset and positive test results. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, noting that while COVID-19 can be a compensable injury if work-related, Herrera did not provide sufficient evidence of specific exposure or an elevated risk in his work environment. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryWorkplace ExposureSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCausally-Related InjuryFactory WorkerDisallowed ClaimBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. CV-23-0928
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Patricio Herrera

Claimant Patricio Herrera appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed his claim for benefits, alleging he contracted COVID-19 during employment with American Badge, Inc. The Board initially established the claim but found no causally-related lost time, then later found no work-related COVID-19 contraction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that a compensable COVID-19 claim requires demonstrating specific exposure or an elevated risk in the work environment. The court found that Herrera failed to provide sufficient evidence, as his symptoms appeared before those of most coworkers, and the employer implemented safety protocols. Therefore, the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

COVID-19 claimWorkers' Compensation Board appealCausally-related injuryOccupational exposureInfection at workplaceSubstantial evidence reviewClaim disallowanceAppellate affirmationEmployer safety protocolsMedical deposition testimony
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1993

United Food & Commercial Workers v. City of Schenectady Industrial Development Agency

The petitioners, comprising various unions and union presidents, sought financial documents from respondent Connecticut National Bank (CNB) and the City of Schenectady Industrial Development Corporation (SIDA) concerning industrial revenue bonds, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). SIDA stated it lacked the documents, while CNB asserted it was not subject to FOIL. Petitioners then filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel SIDA to obtain the records from CNB. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that CNB acted as a trustee for bondholders, not as an agent for SIDA, making the documents private records and thus not subject to FOIL disclosure.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawIndustrial Revenue BondsTrust IndentureAgency RelationshipRecord DisclosurePrivate EntityAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Saratoga County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Corwin

Petitioner John G. Connor, a permanent part-time police officer, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondents' disciplinary determination. The respondents, including the Chief of Police of the Village of Ellenville, confiscated Connor's badge and police identification following an incident where he allegedly misused his badge while off-duty. Respondents argued this was not a disciplinary action requiring a hearing under Civil Service Law § 75 or Village Law § 8-804. The court determined that the confiscation constituted a disciplinary action, thereby entitling the petitioner to due process, including notice of charges and an opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, the court reversed the respondents' determination, mandating them to conduct a hearing or return the petitioner's badge and expunge relevant records.

Disciplinary ActionPolice Officer RightsDue ProcessCivil Service LawVillage LawArticle 78 ProceedingBadge ConfiscationPublic EmployeeHearing RightsReversed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Ambrosio v. Waterfront Commission

The petitioner-appellant faced a penalty after someone else 'badged in' for him, a required procedure for longshoremen to qualify for guaranteed annual income (GAI). Evidence showed the petitioner was present shortly after the required badge-in time. While acknowledging the necessity of a penalty, the dissenting judges found the imposed six-month suspension, equating to approximately $10,000, to be excessive. They recommended reducing the penalty to a 10-day suspension, aligning with the recommendation of Administrative Judge Patrick W. Mc-Ginley.

Penalty ReductionExcessive PenaltyGuaranteed Annual IncomeBadge In PolicyLongshoremenDissenting OpinionWork AttendanceAdministrative Judge RecommendationDisciplinary ActionSuspension
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Electric Co. v. Walton Street Associates

This appeal addresses whether a contractor, Burns Electric Co., Inc., can compel a developer, Walton Street Associates, to allow inspection of its books and records under Lien Law § 76. Walton, a vendee in possession of property owned by the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA), argued it was an 'owner' and the project a 'public improvement', exempting it from such demands. The court held that while SIDA, as a public agency, is immune, Walton acts as a 'contractor' by engaging subcontractors for the improvement, despite also being an 'owner'. Therefore, Burns is entitled to inspect Walton's financial records to ensure trust funds are used to pay improvement costs. The Special Term's order permitting the relief requested was unanimously affirmed.

Lien LawPublic ImprovementPrivate ImprovementContractor StatusOwner StatusVendee in PossessionTrust FundBooks and Records InspectionMechanics' LienIndustrial Development Agency
References
12
Case No. CA 11-00125
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, L v. TOWN OF GREECE

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which partially vacated an arbitration award. The arbitration involved a disciplinary action against a Town of Greece police sergeant, a member of the Communication Workers of America, Local 1170, who had been demoted. The arbitrator found just cause for demotion but deemed a permanent demotion unreasonable, converting it to a one-year demotion. The Union sought to confirm the award, while the Town sought partial vacatur. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granted the Union's petition, denied the Town's cross-petition, and confirmed the arbitration award. The court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by modifying the penalty, as the collective bargaining agreement allowed for such a determination if the penalty was found unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and did not contain specific limitations on the arbitrator's power to fashion a new penalty.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardPublic PolicyGrievanceDemotionAppellate ReviewJudicial AuthorityArbitrator's PowerContractual InterpretationUnreasonable Penalty
References
10
Case No. ADJ8875115
Regular
Nov 26, 2013

PHAEDRA SERRANO vs. SKYWEST AIRLINES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The applicant, Phaedra Serrano, sought temporary disability indemnity for the period from May 29, 2013, to September 19, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition for reconsideration of the original finding that she was not entitled to this indemnity. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found that Serrano tacitly refused an offer of modified employment by failing to promptly notify her employer of her inability to access her work due to badge and parking issues. This failure to communicate, in conjunction with her prior "no-show" instances, was deemed equivalent to a refusal of employment, thus precluding temporary disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityModified EmploymentRefusal of EmploymentNo Call/No ShowSIDA BadgeParking PassJob AbandonmentTermination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2007

Scarsdale Ass'n of Educational Secretaries v. Board of Education of Scarsdale Union Free School District

In a hybrid action and CPLR Article 78 proceeding, individual secretaries and typists employed by the Scarsdale Union Free School District challenged new job responsibilities, arguing they constituted "out-of-title" work under the Civil Service Law. These responsibilities included monitoring visitors via video and granting access, and providing identification badges to contractors. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the new duties were a reasonable outgrowth of the employees' existing in-title work and that the School District's determination had a rational basis.

Out-of-Title WorkCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Injunctive ReliefSchool District EmploymentEmployee DutiesJob SpecificationsAffirmation of JudgmentJudicial ReviewPublic Employment Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haight v. THE WACKENHUT CORP.

Plaintiffs, a group of security officers led by Scott Haight, filed a lawsuit against Wackenhut Corporation alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for uncompensated preliminary and postliminary work activities. The disputed activities included tasks like donning/doffing protective gear, badging into secure areas, and collecting equipment before and after their shifts at the Indian Point Nuclear Facility. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing these activities were not compensable under FLSA as per established Second Circuit precedent. The Court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the contested activities were not "integral" to the security officers' principal job duties and some were de minimis. Consequently, the claims related to these specific preliminary and postliminary activities were dismissed by the court.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActCompensable TimePreliminary ActivitiesPostliminary ActivitiesSummary JudgmentSecurity OfficersWackenhut CorporationIndian Point Nuclear Facility
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 13 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