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

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2003

Collins v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Petitioner Odessa Collins, an employee of the City of New York Human Resources Administration, challenged NYCERS' denial of her application to purchase premembership retirement service credit for her employment at various day-care centers between 1970 and 1982. Collins argued that her service at HRA-licensed day-care centers, which were under contract with the City, should qualify for credit under Retirement and Social Security Law § 609. NYCERS denied the application, stating that day-care center employees were not on the city payroll and therefore not eligible for NYCERS membership or credit. The court upheld NYCERS' determination, finding it rational and not arbitrary or capricious, as Collins' employment was not

Retirement Service CreditPublic EmploymentDay Care CentersNYCERSPre-Membership ServiceCity PayrollParticipating EmployerArbitrary and CapriciousRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1988

Torres v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a Rikers Island correction officer, sought to annul the New York City Employees’ Retirement System’s denial of his application for accident disability retirement benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, finding that the Medical Board and Board of Trustees' determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court found that the petitioner's injuries occurred after he completed his tour of duty and signed out, while leaving the premises on a Correction Department bus, not in the actual performance of city service. This decision was based on Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-168, which requires injury during city service for eligibility. The court also clarified that eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits was not binding on the Medical Board for accident disability benefits, referencing Administrative Code § 13-176 (c).

accident disability retirementRikers Island correction officercity serviceNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemMedical BoardBoard of TrusteesCPLR Article 78workers' compensationadministrative coderetirement benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The court addressed two consolidated CPLR Article 78 proceedings concerning whether petitioners' dismissal from the Department of Sanitation was effective prior to the vesting of their deferred retirement allowances. Petitioners, Waldeck and Barbaro, applied for the allowance, which vests if an employee is not dismissed within 30 days of application. Respondents, the Department of Sanitation and New York City Employees’ Retirement System, contended that petitioners were dismissed before the vesting date. The court found discrepancies in the dismissal documentation, a lack of explanation from a key witness (Commissioner Sexton), and insufficient proof that the dismissal notices were properly served according to Civil Service Law § 76. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissals were not effective by the critical date, entitling petitioners to their vested retirement allowances.

Deferred Retirement AllowanceAdministrative DismissalCPLR Article 78Vested RightsDue ProcessService of NoticeCivil Service LawPublic EmployeesDepartment of SanitationNew York City Employees’ Retirement System
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Triolo v. New York State Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a former telephone operator, sought accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits after an injury and subsequent employment termination. The Comptroller denied the applications, finding them untimely due to filing outside statutory limits relative to her last paid service date. Furthermore, the Comptroller concluded that the injury, sustained during her lunch hour, was not service-related. The court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, upholding both the untimeliness of the applications and the finding that the injury was not attributable to her government service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

disability retirementaccidental disabilityordinary disabilityuntimely applicationservice-related injuryleave of absencegovernment serviceworkers' compensation benefitsCPLR article 78Comptroller's determination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borenstein v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

This appeal addresses the proper standard for judicial review of a determination by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) Medical Board regarding an applicant's physical disability for city-service. The respondent, an Assistant Deputy Warden, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries at Rikers Island, but the Medical Board repeatedly found her not medically disabled despite conflicting medical opinions. While the Supreme Court initially dismissed her petition, the Appellate Division reversed, granting her pension. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the Medical Board’s determination as it was based on 'some credible evidence' and was not arbitrary or capricious. The court emphasized that the Medical Board has the authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence and that judicial review should not substitute its judgment for the Board's.

Judicial reviewDisability benefitsAccidental disabilityNYCERSMedical BoardCPLR Article 78Substantial evidenceArbitrary and capriciousAdministrative lawConflicting medical evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ3766392 (AHM 0088962)
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

SHIRLEY HARRELSON vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns Shirley Harrelson's claim of discrimination under Labor Code §132a after she voluntarily retired for service and was subsequently denied disability retirement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the administrative law judge's report. The Board found Harrelson was not entitled to job reinstatement under Government Code §31725.7(b) because she voluntarily retired for service prior to her disability retirement application. Furthermore, she failed to prove she suffered disadvantages due to her injury or claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of OrangeYork Risk Services GroupShirley HarrelsonGovernment Code §31725.7Phillips v. County of FresnoDepartment of Rehabilitation/State of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code §132aservice retirementdisability retirement
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,698 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