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. ADJ11149950
Regular
May 14, 2019

FRANCISCA VARELA vs. SMM FACILITIES, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of Varela v. SMM Facilities, Inc. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions, as their due process rights were satisfied by the WCJ's consideration of their arguments against a change of venue. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeChange of VenueDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be Heard
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04542
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Carbone v. ISS Facility Servs., Inc.

Joseph Carbone, an airline employee, sued ISS Facility Services, Inc. for personal injuries after a slip and fall at JFK Airport. The parties entered into a settlement agreement for $150,000, conditional upon the defendant resolving a workers' compensation lien, which the defendant subsequently did. Carbone then refused to complete the settlement paperwork. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendant's motion to enforce the agreement. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the settlement met CPLR 2104 requirements, contained all material terms, and evidenced mutual assent, with no valid grounds presented by the plaintiff to invalidate it.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSettlement AgreementContract EnforcementCPLR 2104Workers' Compensation LienAppellate ProcedureMutual AssentUnconscionable ContractSupreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. 525127
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Maloney v. Wende Corr. Facility

Claimant Shawn Maloney, a correction officer, injured his right shoulder while working at Wende Correctional Facility. His workers' compensation claim was established. Conflicting medical reports from his treating orthopedist, Michael Grant (90% SLU), and an independent medical examiner, Gregory Shankman (50% SLU), led to a hearing. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited Shankman's opinion, finding a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right arm. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. On appeal, the claimant argued the employer waived defenses by not filing a prehearing conference statement, but the court disagreed, noting the claim was not controverted. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported crediting Shankman's medical opinion due to the Board's precedent against duplicative assignments of loss of use values for anterior flexion and abduction deficits.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryOrthopedic EvaluationMedical Expert TestimonyConflicting Medical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentPrehearing Conference Statement RuleWaiver of DefensesMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09078 [178 AD3d 1268]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Matter of Donovan v. DOCCS Coxsackie Corr. Facility

Danl D. Donovan, a correction sergeant, sustained a work-related hip injury. His employer, DOCCS Coxsackie Correctional Facility, advanced his wages and sought reimbursement. Following an award for a schedule loss of use, a dispute arose regarding the deduction of attorney fees from the claimant's payment, which the Workers' Compensation Board upheld. While Donovan's appeal was pending before the Appellate Division, the Board issued an amended decision based on a new legal rationale. Consequently, the Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the initial appeal as moot.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseAttorney Fee DeductionReimbursement DisputeMoot AppealAppellate DivisionWork-related InjuryWage ReimbursementIndependent Medical ExaminerAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02248 [237 AD3d 1379]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Matter of Jehle v. DOCCS Coxsackie Corr. Facility

William Jehle, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury, prompting his employer, DOCCS Coxsackie Correctional Facility, to continue paying his full wages. The employer sought reimbursement, and Jehle's attorney filed for counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, found a temporary total disability, awarded a credit to the employer for wage reimbursement, and granted counsel fees of $4,300 as a lien against this reimbursement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, deeming the lien proper under Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (b). The Appellate Division, Third Department, further affirmed the Board's decision, holding that an award for previously unawarded benefits constitutes an 'increase' under the law, and that counsel fees are appropriately a lien against the employer's reimbursement, dismissing arguments of the employer subsidizing fees.

Counsel FeesLien on AwardEmployer ReimbursementTemporary Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewCorrection OfficerWage ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationClaimant Attorney Fees
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Duffy v. Taconic Correctional Facility

A correction officer, transferred from Jefferson County to Dutchess County, secured housing 30 miles from his new workplace at an employer-maintained facility. On February 3, 2005, he slipped and fell in the parking lot of this housing facility while on his way to work, injuring his back. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, entitling him to benefits. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as there was no sufficient nexus between the accident site and the employer's premises, and the claimant was not required to live on-site but did so for convenience. The court also noted that the claimant's assignment was permanent, not temporary business travel, and he did not qualify as an outside employee. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentTraveling to WorkEmployer PremisesHousing AccommodationCorrection OfficerSlip and FallAccidental InjuryPermanent TransferJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Coughlin

Petitioners, inmates at Clinton Correctional Facility, challenged a determination by the facility's Adjustment Committee via a CPLR article 78 proceeding after refusing Sunday labor. They faced misbehavior reports, a hearing, and subsequent punishments including job suspension and keeplock. During the hearing, they were denied rights to present documentary evidence, call witnesses, or have legal representation. The petitioners contended they were entitled to more extensive due process, citing precedent, but the Supreme Court's judgment, which dismissed their application, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court referenced a prior ruling which deemed similar inmate confinement as nonpunitive, thus not triggering strict due process standards.

Inmate rightsDue processAdjustment CommitteePrison disciplineKeeplockCorrectional facilityAdministrative hearingCPLR article 78Appellate reviewConstitutional law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 571 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