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

Claim of Rosario v. AIG

Claimant, an accountant, ceased working in 1998 and later applied for workers' compensation benefits for repetitive strain injuries, with the claim established in 2001 for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. In 2006, the parties stipulated that claimant was permanently partially disabled. The employer's carrier subsequently sought to determine if claimant was actively seeking employment within her medical restrictions. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the application to suspend benefits, finding no voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, concluding claimant had voluntarily withdrawn by failing to search for work within her medical restrictions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant admitted to not searching for work for an extended period, despite being capable of performing sedentary work.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Motion InjurySedentary WorkEmployment SearchBoard DecisionAppeal
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiltsie v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

Claimant suffered a compensable low back injury in 1995, continuing work with restrictions and ADA accommodations. In 2003, the employer's decision to change his shift caused claimant stress, leading his primary physician to diagnose chest pain syndrome, agoraphobia, and depression, and advise him to stop working. Initially awarded benefits for a period, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently denied further benefits, concluding that claimant's departure from work was for reasons unrelated to his back disability. Claimant appealed, contending his back injury prevented him from the new shift, but the Board's determination, supported by other evidence, found he left due to stress from the shift dispute rather than his back condition. The Board's decision, which included an assessment of claimant's testimony and medical evidence, was affirmed, as it was supported by credible evidence.

Low Back InjuryAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Workplace AccommodationShift Schedule ChangeStress-Related IllnessChest Pain SyndromeAgoraphobiaDepression DiagnosisCredibility of Medical OpinionPermanent Partial Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Sullivan

This social security disability benefits case involves plaintiff Genevieve Rosario, who sustained injuries in a 1989 automobile accident. She applied for disability benefits, which were denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and subsequently upheld by the Appeals Council, on the basis that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. The District Court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly highlighting the improper consideration of Rosario's return to work during a potential trial work period and misinterpretation of medical assessments regarding sedentary work requirements. The court emphasized that the concept of sedentary work typically does not involve alternating between sitting and standing, as required by Rosario. Consequently, both cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings were denied, and the case was remanded to the ALJ for clarification on the precise period of disability and the subsequent trial work period.

Social Security DisabilitySedentary WorkResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeRemandMedical EvidenceTrial Work PeriodLumbar SprainCervical SprainAutomobile Accident
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. ADJ1438639 (GRO0024593) ADJ3262777 (GRO0025366)
Regular
Jul 06, 2011

DENNIS TIMMONS vs. CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY, STATE COMP. INS. FUND, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior award of Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits to the applicant, Dennis Timmons. The applicant sought SIBTF benefits based on a claimed pre-existing disability from a 1991 injury, arguing it imposed a prophylactic restriction from very heavy work that contributed to his 2000 industrial injury. However, the Board found no substantial medical evidence of a ratable pre-existing disability at the time of the 2000 injury, as prior medical reports indicated no residual disability and the applicant returned to work without restrictions. The Board concluded that a retroactive prophylactic restriction, without evidence of actual prior work limitations, is insufficient to establish SIBTF eligibility.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpre-existing disabilityindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEprophylactic restrictionWCJ
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Turetzky-Santaniello v. Vassar Bros. Hospital

The claimant, a registered nurse, suffered two work-related back injuries in 1992 and 1996 but continued full-time work. She resigned in March 1998, effective April 24, 1998, to relocate to Massachusetts, undergoing emergency back surgery shortly after. Following her move, she secured a part-time nursing position, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board denied her reduced earnings benefits post-April 24, 1998, finding a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The claimant appealed, arguing the denial was erroneous due to a lack of medical reports restricting her work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that her reduced earnings were attributable to factors unrelated to her work-related injury, given her pre-surgery resignation plans and lack of medical evidence restricting work hours.

Reduced Earnings AwardVoluntary Withdrawal Labor MarketWork-Related InjuryBack SurgeryRegistered Nurse ClaimantMedical Report InsufficiencyCausal Relation DisabilityAppellate Division ReviewEmployment RelocationPart-Time Work
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Rourke v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Claimant, a mechanic, sustained a work-related knee injury in January 2006, leading to total knee replacement surgery and eventual permanent restriction from his position. After failing a job training program and losing his budgeted position, claimant took regular retirement. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found an involuntary withdrawal from the labor market and awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, determining a voluntary withdrawal. The claimant appealed this reversal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing medical evidence that claimant could perform light duty or sedentary work despite his disability as a mechanic, and his admission of not seeking employment post-retirement.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary Removal from Labor MarketLight Duty WorkSedentary WorkPermanent RestrictionDisabilityJob Training ProgramRetirementConsequential InjuryAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05823
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Kalembka v. Slomins, Inc.

Claimant Witold Kalembka appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from March 12, 2018, which affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) finding that Kalembka had a permanent partial disability but failed to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market. The WCLJ classified Kalembka with a 74% loss of wage-earning capacity, capable of "light work," and withheld benefit payments. The Board modified the WCLJ's decision by stating Kalembka was only capable of "sedentary work," but otherwise upheld the finding of a lack of attachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Kalembka did not provide sufficient evidence of actively seeking employment within his medical restrictions.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentMedical RestrictionsSedentary WorkJob SearchSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewClaim Benefits
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,984 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