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 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. 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

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Norcross v. Camden Central School

This case involves an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling that shifted liability to the Special Fund under WCL § 25-a, regarding a claimant's work-related injury from 2001. The Special Fund contended that the Board's decision deviated from its own precedent by shifting liability without requiring proof that further medical or indemnity benefits were payable, which is a necessary condition for reopening a claim for this purpose. The court determined that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its prior decisions, thereby rendering its determination arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftAgency PrecedentRational ExplanationArbitrary and CapriciousRFA-2 formMedical BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsAppellate DivisionRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batsidis v. Wallack Management Co.

This case concerns a dispute between a proprietary lessee (plaintiff) and a cooperative corporation and its management company (defendants) over the scope and enforcement of a cost-shifting provision in an alteration agreement. The plaintiff's renovation work was halted, leading to a stipulation allowing him to resume work under specified conditions. However, defendants subsequently sought to impose payment of legal and engineering fees, incurred due to the renovation issues, as a new precondition for the work to continue. The appellate court found the cost-shifting provision itself valid and enforceable, but ruled that the defendants forfeited their right to impose the fee payment as a new condition for resuming work since it was not part of the initial court-ordered stipulation. Consequently, the lower court's decision, which denied the plaintiff's motion to resume work without paying the fees, was reversed, and the plaintiff was permitted to continue the renovations.

Renovation disputeAlteration agreementCost-shifting clauseCooperative housingProprietary leaseContract enforcementStipulation of settlementLegal feesEngineering feesBreach of contract
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

Claim of Abdallah v. New York City Department of Transportation

The claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits for an anxiety disorder resulting from continuous harassment at the New York City Department of Transportation. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for an accident and lack of credible medical testimony. The claimant testified to being subjected to retaliatory harassment for six years after reporting corruption, leading to a transfer to the night shift and subsequent onset of physical and psychological symptoms, diagnosed as an anxiety disorder. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the harassment constituted unusual environmental conditions causing an accidental injury and accepted the claimant's expert medical testimony linking the psychic disability to the work-related injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence, despite conflicting medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationHarassmentRetaliationWhistleblowingAnxiety DisorderPsychic InjuryCausationExpert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DePaoli v. Great a & P Tea Co.

Claimant, a manager at an A & P supermarket, experienced severe anxiety symptoms on October 30, 1994, diagnosed as panic disorder, attributed to work-related stress. This stress arose from personnel changes, including the replacement of experienced co-managers with inexperienced staff and the reassignment of the night crew to day shifts, forcing the claimant to work excessive hours. A & P opposed workers' compensation benefits, arguing the mental injury was a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The Workers’ Compensation Board Panel and Appellate Division ruled that the injury was not a direct consequence of decisions aimed at the claimant, thus not precluded by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7). The Court affirmed, holding that section 2 (7) applies only when the personnel decision directly targets the claimant.

Workers' CompensationMental InjuryWork-Related StressPersonnel DecisionsDirect ConsequencePanic DisorderEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausation
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,236 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