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. 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

Thornton v. Heckler

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old individual with a heart condition and limited education, challenged the Secretary's denial of disability insurance benefits for a second time. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the plaintiff could perform his past work. Following a district court remand, the ALJ concluded the plaintiff could not return to his prior heavy and skilled work but could undertake semi-skilled sedentary work as an electrical inspector. The key dispute revolved around the transferability of skills under vocational guidelines, specifically whether the plaintiff, of advanced age, required 'very little' vocational adjustment as mandated by § 201.00(f). A vocational expert testified that the plaintiff would need more than minimal adjustment for training and psychological adaptation to a new industry and work setting. The court determined that the Secretary's decision lacked substantial evidence, particularly given the uncontradicted expert testimony. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating benefits due to the plaintiff.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActVocational ExpertSkill TransferabilitySedentary WorkAdministrative Law JudgeRemandSubstantial EvidenceVocational AdjustmentResidual Functional Capacity
References
11
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06500 [153 AD3d 1475]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2017

Matter of Golovashchenko v. Asar Intl. Corp.

Claimant Leonid Golovashchenko, an asbestos handler, sustained multiple injuries and was awarded partial disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified him with a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity, concluding he could perform light work. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found the WCLJ's determination regarding claimant's capacity for light work was not supported by substantial medical evidence, as treating physicians rated him for less than sedentary or sedentary work. The court modified the decision, reversing the finding on light work capacity and the associated 60% loss of wage-earning capacity. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings to properly ascertain the claimant's loss of wage-earning capacity, advising that an updated vocational rehabilitation report should be considered.

Workers' CompensationWage-Earning CapacityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentFunctional AbilityVocational FactorsLight Work CapacitySubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monteiro v. Heckler

Plaintiff Fernando Monteiro sought reversal of a Secretary's decision denying his Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits application, arguing he was unable to perform light work. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had found Monteiro capable of light work, but the Court determined this finding was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court critically reviewed the medical opinions, especially that of Monteiro's treating physician, Dr. Ippolito, who consistently concluded Monteiro could only perform sedentary work. The Court found the ALJ misconstrued Monteiro's testimony regarding daily activities and improperly relied on an undocumented report from an unnamed physician. Consequently, the Court reversed the Secretary's finding of no disability and remanded the case for a calculation of benefits, concluding Monteiro met the criteria for disability based on sedentary work capacity.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsSedentary WorkLight WorkResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. 698 F.Supp. 452
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1988

Tunis v. Corning Glass Works

Catherine Tunis, a process engineer at Corning Glass, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a hostile work environment due to pinup photographs, gender-based language, and catcalls, and that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints and an EEOC filing. The court found that the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action regarding the hostile environment claims. Additionally, the court determined that Tunis failed to demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by Corning Glass for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, all of Tunis's claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentGender BiasWrongful TerminationFederal Lawsuit
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. Callahan

Richard Bridges, a former New York City Police Detective, sought judicial review of a final administrative determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied his application for social security disability insurance benefits. Bridges challenged the Commissioner's finding that he was not 'disabled' and could perform sedentary work, despite suffering from multiple work-related injuries to his back and knee. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by substituting his own judgment for that of Bridges' treating physician and by not providing substantial evidence to support the finding that Bridges could perform sedentary work. The court, therefore, denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Bridges' motion, remanding the case for the calculation of benefits.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsSedentary WorkTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySpinal InjuriesKnee InjuriesHerniated Discs
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Pravato v. Town of Huntington

Claimant, a former laborer and sanitation truck driver, sustained a back injury while working for the Town of Huntington in 2011. His workers' compensation claim was established, and he received temporary total disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified him with a permanent partial disability and a 70% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Workers' Compensation Board panel modified this to a 40% loss, concluding he could perform sedentary work and was not attached to the labor market. On appeal, the Appellate Division found a lack of competent medical evidence to support the Board's finding regarding sedentary work, thereby reversing the 40% loss of wage-earning capacity and remitting for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding that the claimant was not attached to the labor market.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentBack InjuryOrthopedic InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSedentary WorkVocational Skills
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,751 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