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

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1984

Kacprowski v. Sorro

This case involves a special proceeding under Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) where the plaintiffs-petitioners sought permission to compromise a personal injury action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted their motion for leave to renew and reargue their application, subsequently granting the application to compromise the action. The Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, arguing the $22,500 settlement was inadequate and the permission to settle was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the resettled order, finding that the liability and damage questions in the underlying action, which involved a dog attack aggravating previous injuries and precipitating surgery, were problematical, thus concluding that the settlement grant was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjurySettlementCompromiseDog AttackAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDamagesLiabilityAggravated Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Von Steen v. Musch

This case involves a special proceeding initiated by Steven Von Steen and Von Steen Asset Management, Inc. (petitioners) against their client Elisabeth Musch (respondent) to stay an arbitration. Musch had filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, alleging significant investment losses due to unsuitable recommendations, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that Musch's claims were time-barred and that punitive damages were not an arbitrable issue. The court, referencing federal arbitration law and Supreme Court precedents like Howsam and Mastrobuono, denied the petition, ruling that the issues of statute of limitations and punitive damages were to be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. The proceeding was dismissed, and all stays were lifted.

arbitrationinvestment disputestatute of limitationspunitive damagesFederal Arbitration ActCPLR 7502CPLR 7503securities lawinvestment managementfiduciary duty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company v. Special Funds Conservation Comittee

An employee of Coca-Cola Bottling Company sustained a work-related injury in March 2007 and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits, payable by Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company. The employee was classified with a permanent partial disability, making the Special Disability Fund responsible for reimbursing Ace Fire after 260 weeks under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The injured employee settled a third-party personal injury action with Ace Fire's approval, but without the Special Disability Fund's consent. Ace Fire then commenced a proceeding to compel the Special Disability Fund's consent nunc pro tunc under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Court of Appeals held that if the Special Disability Fund's consent is required as a lienor under section 29 (1), the failure to obtain it can be cured by a court order nunc pro tunc under section 29 (5). The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundThird-Party ActionLienNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalStatutory InterpretationReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

The Village of Nissequogue initiated a special proceeding against the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service after the department refused to certify the payroll for police officers Dennis McHugh and Roger Leigh. The officers, appointed in 1982 and 1984, had served commendably despite not being appointed from an official eligibility list. The department, aware of the irregular appointments since 1986, did not act until 1989 when it blocked payroll certification, prompting this legal challenge. The court examined the applicability of a 1984 amendment to Civil Service Law § 100 (5), which presumes proper appointment after three years, even for initially irregular appointments. The court ruled that the department could not refuse payroll certification, denied the department's motion to dismiss, and granted the officers' cross-petition for payment, citing the department's inaction despite prior knowledge.

Civil Service LawPayroll CertificationPolice OfficersIllegal AppointmentConstitutional LawSpecial ProceedingSuffolk CountyMerit SystemProbationary PeriodStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. 10-96-146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1997

William T. Dub Draper v. Rockett Special Utility District

William T. "Dub" Draper sued his former employer, Rockett Special Utility District, for wrongful discharge, alleging both retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Rockett on both claims and imposed discovery sanctions against Draper. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding that Rockett's administrative policies did not alter the at-will employment relationship. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that material fact issues existed regarding Draper's alleged misconduct and his ability to perform job functions. The appellate court also upheld the discovery sanctions imposed by the trial court, deeming them just and serving the legitimate purposes of discovery sanctions. The retaliatory discharge claim was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentDiscovery SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 10,791 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