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

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horowitz v. Secretary of State of New York

Ten electors representing the Socialist Workers party in New York filed independent nominating petitions for presidential and vice-presidential electors. The Secretary of State refused to place their names on voting machines, citing that the party had nominated only 10 electors instead of the 43 the state is entitled to, and offered ballot slips as an alternative. The electors initiated a proceeding to compel the Secretary of State to include their names on the voting machines. The court, referencing sections of the Election Law and previous rulings, found that the law does not mandate a complete slate of electors. It concluded that denying the Socialist Workers party a place on the voting machines, unlike major parties, would constitute discriminatory disenfranchisement of their voters. Therefore, the petition was granted.

Election LawPresidential ElectorsVoting MachinesIndependent CandidatesBallot AccessVoter DisenfranchisementNew YorkSecretary of StateSpecial ProceedingEqual Protection
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Young

The case involves an application by the Secretary of State to cancel and revoke the certification of candidates via telegram. The court affirmed the order without costs and granted the Secretary of State's application. No opinion was provided for the decision, with several judges concurring.

Secretary of Statecertification revocationcandidate certificationtelegramorder affirmedapplication grantedadministrative law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Secretary of United States Department of Health & Human Services

Lydia Gonzalez, 72, sought Medicare reimbursement for her hospital stay from July 28 to August 19, 1981, following surgeries at Nassau Hospital for a sacral ulcer. The hospital's Utilization Review Committee and Physicians Review Organization determined she only required "custodial care," which is not covered by Medicare. Her discharge was delayed due to insanitary home conditions. After appeals to the New York Statewide Professional Standard Review Council and an Administrative Law Judge affirmed the denial, Gonzalez pursued legal action. The District Court granted the defendant's motion, affirming the Secretary's decision, finding that while the ALJ's reasoning was unclear, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Gonzalez's extended hospital stay was due to non-medical "disposition problems" rather than a medical necessity for skilled nursing care.

Medicare benefitscustodial careskilled nursing careSocial Security Acthospital dischargemedical necessityadministrative reviewdenial of benefitsUtilization Review CommitteeAppeals Council
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Secretary of United States Depatment of Health & Human Services

Charles Bennett ("plaintiff") is appealing a final decision by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which denied his application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Bennett, a 41-year-old with a history of heart issues and a December 1986 back injury, claims disability, which was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge and upheld by the Appeals Council. The court's review examines whether the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence, specifically evaluating the "treating physician rule" concerning the opinions of Dr. Blum and Dr. Gold versus consulting physicians like Dr. Massoff. While objective tests confirm a bulging disc and treating physicians noted decreased range of motion, the court found their cursory "total disability" conclusion for Workers' Compensation purposes insufficient under the Act. Consequently, the court remands the case to the Secretary, requiring further information on Bennett's current residual functional capacity for sedentary or light work.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeResidual Functional CapacityLumbosacral Spine StrainBulging DiscTreating Physician RuleRemandAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council
References
11
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tate v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States

Plaintiff Michael Tate appealed the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits, marking the second time the District Court considered his case. Tate, a 41-year-old functionally illiterate former factory worker with asbestosis and intellectual impairments, presented medical evidence from several physicians, mostly concluding he was totally disabled. Despite a vocational expert's testimony, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Tate capable of sedentary work, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The District Court found the Secretary's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing the ALJ's unsupported medical conclusions regarding Tate's inability to walk and fatally defective hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert. Consequently, the court remanded the case for further evidence and consistent findings.

Disability BenefitsAsbestosisIlliteracyVocational ExpertRemandSocial Security ActSubstantial EvidenceFunctional IlliteracyLung DiseaseAppeals Council
References
8
Case No. 121778, 121782
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

Jimerson v. State of New York

Claimants, Joshua A. Jimerson (as Administrator of Patricia A. John's Estate) and Kenneth Vanaernam, sought damages for wrongful death and injuries after falling through a hole on the Red House Bridge (RHB). The bridge, built by the State of New York in 1930, is located within the sovereign land of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Despite a history of confusion regarding maintenance responsibility, a 1976 Memorandum of Understanding and a 2007 Project Specific Agreement had indicated the State's involvement. The Court of Claims initially denied the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the State's duty to maintain the bridge. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Highway Law § 53 unambiguously obligates the State to maintain highways and bridges it constructed on Indian reservation land, thereby establishing the State's statutory duty.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjuryHighway MaintenanceBridge CollapseState ResponsibilityStatutory DutySummary JudgmentIndian ReservationNew York State Department of TransportationSeneca Nation of Indians
References
0
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 9,000 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