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. ADJ10870145, ADJ8277957
Regular
Jan 30, 2023

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. PORTERVILLE SHELTERED WORKSHOP, MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CLAIMS MGMT., TREE & SIERRA MGMT., SIERRA MGMT., CIGA, INTERCARE HOLDINGS, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury while employed by both Sierra Management and Porterville Sheltered Workshop. This decision was based on the WCJ adopting the opinion of Dr. Bernhard, which was found to be substantial evidence despite conflicting medical opinions. The Board affirmed that a single physician's considered opinion can suffice as substantial evidence, even if it contradicts other medical findings. The Petitioner's arguments regarding the WCJ's reasoning and conflicting medical opinions were rejected.

ADJ10870145ADJ8277957Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Opinionsubstantial evidencephysician opinioncumulative injuryCIGAManufacturers Alliance Insurance Company
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vazquez v. Orange County Rehabilitation Center

Plaintiff's ward was allegedly sexually assaulted by defendant Lewis while engaged in piecework at a sheltered workshop operated by Occupations. Defendants Occupations and Lewis asserted workers' compensation coverage as affirmative defenses. The court held that claims occurring before July 22, 1989, when Mental Hygiene Law § 33.09 (c) excluded sheltered workshop participants from workers' compensation, are not subject to the defense. For claims after July 22, 1989, when the law was amended to allow coverage if elected, the issue of workers' compensation coverage is referred to the Workers' Compensation Board. Defendant Orange County Department of Mental Health's motion for summary judgment was granted due to lack of evidence linking them to the incident or supervision of Occupations.

sexual assaultsheltered workshopworkers' compensationsummary judgmentaffirmative defensestatutory constructionjurisdictionMental Hygiene Lawamendmentnegligence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1987

Barnes v. Koch

The case involves an application for a preliminary injunction by homeless families to close the Catherine Street Shelter due to health hazards, specifically lead-based paint and asbestos. Following a temporary restraining order and subsequent renovations by the City of New York, the court conducted hearings on the adequacy of lead abatement and maintenance. Medical experts presented conflicting testimony regarding the safety of the shelter. The court, while acknowledging the governmental obligation to provide safe shelter, granted the preliminary injunction in part. It imposed conditions including prohibiting stays longer than 30 days, excluding families with young children, pregnant women, or mentally retarded members, and mandating strict adherence to the City's promised maintenance and inspection plan, along with prominent warning signs.

HomelessnessShelter ConditionsLead PoisoningPreliminary InjunctionHealth HazardsPublic HealthAdministrative DiscretionEquitable PowerTenant RightsGovernmental Obligation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Rockland Shelter Animals, Inc. v. Mullen

Friends of Rockland Shelter Animals, Inc. ("FORSA") sued Samantha Mullen and the Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS") for tortious interference with a prospective business advantage. FORSA was negotiating with Rockland County to operate an animal shelter, but their contract resolution was defeated after Mullen sent a letter to the County Executive critiquing FORSA's proposal and defending the incumbent shelter, Hi Tor. FORSA alleged Mullen's letter contained false statements. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging FORSA's suit was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP suit") under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 70-a. The court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that defendants' lobbying activities were protected by the First Amendment under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and the "sham exception" did not apply. The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees and damages, finding FORSA's suit was not entirely without merit.

Tortious InterferenceProspective Business AdvantageSLAPP SuitFirst AmendmentNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham ExceptionFreedom of SpeechPetition ClauseMotion for Judgment on PleadingsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free School District

Plaintiff Stephanie Bucalo sued Shelter Island Union Free School District for age and retaliation discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, and the NYSHRL. After a four-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant, concluding Bucalo failed to prove discrimination. Bucalo subsequently filed motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) or, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 59. The court denied both motions, clarifying that the McDonnell Douglas rebuttable presumption of discrimination does not arise until the trier of fact (the jury) finds the prima facie case proven. The court also held that the defendant could use circumstantial evidence to defend against the claims, despite the unavailability of the sole decision-maker due to death.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkRule 50(b) motionRule 59 motionJury TrialPrima Facie CaseBurden Shifting
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1987

Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corp. v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal concerning the City of New York's plan to increase the number of buildings used as a shelter for homeless men at the Greenpoint Hospital site. Petitioners, including the Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corporation, sought compliance with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and the filing of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and an injunction against using the West Building. The Supreme Court initially granted relief. On appeal, the judgment was modified, deleting findings on environmental impact and vacating the injunction. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making administrative decisions regarding environmental impact and that an emergency exemption applied to the West Building, allowing the city to proceed.

Homeless Shelter ExpansionEnvironmental ReviewLand Use ProcedureInjunctionEmergency ExemptionGreenpoint HospitalSEQRA ComplianceCEQR ComplianceULURP ComplianceJudicial Review Scope
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1992

Minuard v. Sullivan

The case involves a plaintiff with borderline mental retardation challenging the Secretary's determination of overpayment of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The plaintiff, receiving disability due to mental and physical impairments, was found to have been overpaid after working in a sheltered workshop. An Administrative Law Judge denied the plaintiff's request to waive recovery, citing her fault in not reporting earnings. However, a Magistrate Judge found that the Secretary's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence, considering the plaintiff's low IQ and understanding of reporting requirements. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, denying the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and reversing the Secretary's determination.

SSI BenefitsOverpayment WaiverDisability ClaimMental RetardationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFault DeterminationSocial Security ActSheltered Employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1991

Cleary v. Perales

This case concerns an appeal regarding the entitlement to attorney's fees for a mentally retarded man (petitioner) who successfully challenged the denial of Medicaid reimbursement for his transportation to a Federal sheltered workshop via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial IAS Court found the denial of Medicaid coverage irrational and not in accordance with social services law. On appeal, the court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of attorney's fees, concluding that the petitioner, as a prevailing party, was entitled to such fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court determined that the federal claim had sufficient substance and derived from a common nucleus of operative fact with the state claim. The matter was remanded for the calculation of attorney's fees, with the State respondent bearing the final responsibility.

Attorney's FeesMedicaid ReimbursementSocial Security DisabilityCPLR Article 78Federal Statutory RightsPrevailing PartyCommon Nucleus of Operative FactMental RetardationTransportation CostsSocial Services Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2002

Besaw v. St. Lawrence County Ass'n for Retarded Children

Plaintiff Jeannie M. Besaw, a participant in a sheltered workshop program sponsored by defendant St. Lawrence County Association for Retarded Children (ARC), was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident while being transported in an ARC van. She and her mother commenced an action against ARC and the driver, alleging negligence. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had an employment relationship with ARC and her claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity. The Supreme Court stayed the action pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the stay, noting that questions of fact regarding employment status and scope are within the Board's primary jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Board ruled that plaintiff was not an ARC employee and disallowed her workers' compensation claim, which collaterally estopped defendants from relitigating those issues.

Sheltered Workshop ProgramWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityMotor Vehicle AccidentScope of EmploymentPrimary JurisdictionCollateral EstoppelMental Hygiene LawWorkers' Compensation BoardNegligenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold-Greenberger v. Human Resources Administration

The petitioner, a candidate for a local school board, was denied access by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) to a homeless shelter to solicit signatures for his nominating petition. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted the petitioner access, ruling that restricting signature solicitation while allowing voter registration would cause no additional disruption. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, categorizing the homeless shelter as a 'nonpublic forum.' The court concluded that HRA's denial of access for political campaigning was a reasonable restriction, consistent with the shelter's purpose of providing temporary residential care and services, and protected the privacy interests of residents. The court noted that the petitioner could still campaign outside the shelter.

First AmendmentPublic ForumNonpublic ForumFreedom of SpeechHomeless ShelterPolitical CampaigningVoter RegistrationAccess RestrictionGovernment PropertyMootness Exception
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 59 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