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
May 24, 1995

Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the employment status of a claimant who was injured while working at Westwood Pharmaceuticals. The claimant was generally employed by Manpower, Inc., a temporary employee supplier. Westwood contended that it was the claimant's special employer, limiting her remedy to workers' compensation. The Board initially found that Westwood's control was insufficient to establish a special employment relationship, ruling Manpower as the sole employer. Both Westwood and Manpower appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's findings, concluding that the evidence demonstrated Westwood exercised exclusive control and supervision over the claimant's activities, thereby establishing a special employment relationship. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision.

Special EmploymentTemporary EmployeeWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityControl TestDual EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. WCB Case No. G069 6605
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Kanye Khalid Green v. Dutchess County BOCES

This case involves Angel Vazquez, the applicant, and New York City Transit Authority, the employer, with the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance as the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The issue at hand is the employer's request for reimbursement from the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers' Compensation Law §15(8)(d). The Board Panel found that the employer failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to resolve the claim prior to the hearing, specifically regarding a claim for an accidental injury. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, which denied the employer's request for reimbursement, was affirmed. The Board also noted that the employer's application for review did not comply with the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(1).

Workers' Compensation Law §15(8)(d)Special Funds Conservation CommitteeReimbursement claimGood faith effortAccidental injuryBoard Panel decisionAffirmation of WCJ decision12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(1)Pre-hearing resolutionEmployer liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martin v. New York Telephone

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the liability for benefits. The claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1987 and a reinjury in 1995. A 1998 Section 32 settlement agreement released the employer from future claims for a lump sum, but required it to cover medical treatment. In 2004, the claimant developed a consequential right knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately shifted liability for benefits to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, citing the passage of statutory timeframes. The Special Fund appealed, challenging its statutory liability and the employer's ongoing responsibility for medical expenses per the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the applicability of Section 25-a and noting the employer's statutory obligation for medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 32 Settlement AgreementConsequential InjuryMedical Treatment LiabilityStatutory LiabilitySchedule Loss of UseAppellate ReviewTimelinessBoard Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2009

Claim of Ceplo v. Raymond Corp.

A claimant sustained a work-related injury in 1998 and received workers’ compensation benefits. In 2002, the self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing a prior injury under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). However, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the employer's claim for reimbursement, ruling that the required C-250 form had been inadequately completed, specifically lacking crucial details about the prior injury and its associated workers' compensation claim. The employer and its third-party administrator subsequently appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to the prescribed regulations for claims seeking reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementForm C-250Prior InjuryStrict ComplianceAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilitySelf-insured
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Russo v. M & M Transportation

The claimant, employed by M & M Transportation, sustained back and knee injuries in 1976. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging various preexisting conditions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). However, the carrier failed to produce medical proof to support its claim of preexisting conditions, even after being directed to do so by the Hearing Officer. Consequently, the Hearing Officer discharged the Special Fund, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to provide clarifying medical proof and finding the Board's denial of reconsideration was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court emphasized that the existence of a previous disability must be established before addressing the employer's knowledge of such a condition.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionMedical EvidenceCarrier ObligationsBoard DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Brigandi v. Town & Country Linoleum & Carpet

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its compensation carrier against decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decedent, a carpet layer, died from cardiac arrest during work, with an autopsy revealing underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. His widow was awarded death benefits. The employer’s carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), asserting a preexisting permanent physical impairment. However, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the decedent’s heart condition hindered his job potential before his death, thus releasing the Special Disability Fund from liability and holding the compensation carrier responsible. The employer's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board, leading to these appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board rationally found no proof that the decedent's heart disease impaired his job potential, a necessary condition for reimbursement under WCL § 15 (8) (d).

Special Disability FundPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCardiac ArrestCoronary Atherosclerotic DiseaseDeath Benefits ClaimEmployer ReimbursementCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision ReviewAppellate AffirmationMedical Evidence Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2008

Claim of Clark v. Suny Upstate Medical Center

Claimant injured her back in 1994, leading to a closed case in 1997. Following further work-related injuries in 2001 and 2003, the 1994 claim was reopened in 2004 to address apportionment of liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases should assume liability for the 1994 claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, a decision which the Special Fund appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the statutory time limits for shifting liability to the Special Fund (more than seven years after injury and more than three years after last payment) were satisfied. The court rejected the Special Fund's contention that the employer's carrier voluntarily paid benefits for the 1994 claim, noting that the carrier had raised the issue of Special Fund liability.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability shiftingCase reopeningApportionmentStatutory time limitsVoluntary paymentsAppellate reviewBack injuryMedical opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2004

Claim of Carter v. Von Roll Isola, USA, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that an employer's workers' compensation carrier was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for additional benefits paid due to concurrent employment. The Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, challenging the Board's interpretation of Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (1). The core issue was whether the notice of the right to reimbursement must be filed before any award or only before the award dealing with concurrent wages. The appellate court affirmed the Board's interpretation, holding that the notice only needs to precede the concurrent wage award, finding this consistent with the statutory text and context. Therefore, the carrier's notice, filed before the concurrent wage award, was deemed timely.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursementConcurrent EmploymentNotice FilingStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardWage CalculationBenefit Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tritto v. Lasala Construction Co.

A claimant's 1966 work injury was deemed compensable by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1968, and the case was closed pending a third-party action. After the third-party settlement in 1970, the case was again closed with no deficiency compensation found. In 1976, the Board reopened the case, ultimately ruling in March 1979 that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases held no liability. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing that the seven-year lapse requirement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a had been met, thus establishing Special Fund liability. The appellate court agreed, reversing the Board's ruling on Special Fund liability and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesStatutory PeriodSeven-Year LapseDeficiency CompensationThird-Party ActionCarrier LiabilityEmployer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,971 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