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. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. POM 0295755 POM 0295756
Regular
Jan 28, 2008

CONSUELO RAMIREZ vs. ROYAL CABINETS, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant insurer's Petition for Reconsideration because the order allowing the applicant to elect against the insurer was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal to address the insurer's claim of irreparable harm regarding a specific injury election in 2006, for which they allegedly provided no coverage. Ultimately, the Board struck the 2006 specific injury election from the order while affirming the applicant's election against the insurer for the cumulative trauma claim from 1998-2007.

Labor Code 5500.5Petition Electing DefendantSpecific Injury ElectionCumulative Trauma ElectionDate of InjuryInsurance CoverageReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
4
Case No. No. 41
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

The Matter of Bethany Kosmider v.Mark Whitney, as Commissioner of the Essex County Board of Elections

This case addresses whether electronic copies of voted ballots are exempt from disclosure under New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) based on Election Law § 3-222(2). Petitioner Bethany Kosmider sought electronic ballot images from the November 2015 general election from the Essex County Board of Elections. The County Attorney denied the request, citing Election Law § 3-222(2), which restricts examination of "voted ballots" for two years without a court order. While lower courts ordered disclosure, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory restriction applies equally to electronic copies of ballots, thereby precluding their release under FOIL during the two-year period without proper judicial or legislative directive. The decision emphasizes the legislative intent to balance ballot secrecy, anti-tampering measures, accuracy, and finality in the electoral process.

Election LawFOILBallot SecrecyElectronic BallotsVoted BallotsPublic RecordsStatutory InterpretationCourt OrderLegislative IntentGovernment Transparency
References
59
Case No. ADJ625812 (POM 0280514)
Regular
Aug 24, 2011

William McCarther vs. USS Cal Builders, Zurich North America, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Zurich North America sought removal after applicant's invalid election against SCIF, arguing it was precluded from discovery and entitled to its own medical evidence for a specific injury. The Board granted removal, finding the election void and the discovery delay unjustified. The case involves a specific industrial injury where both SCIF and Zurich may be liable, with Zurich having made its first appearance nearly twenty months after being joined. The Board redesignated the upcoming trial as a status conference to allow Zurich to present policy information and clarify its coverage stance.

Petition for RemovalZurich North AmericaSCIFElection Against SCIFLabor Code section 5500.5(c)Specific InjuryJoinder of Party DefendantCoverage DenialASCIPWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. ADJ10550274
Regular
Mar 24, 2023

MEENA CHANDOK vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant permanently totally disabled due to a subsequent industrial injury combined with pre-existing disabilities. SIBTF argued that an elective tubal ligation and pre-existing cervical and thoracic spine impairments were improperly rated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding that the tubal ligation constituted a ratable impairment under the AMA Guides, and evidence of prior treatment for the spinal conditions predated the industrial injury. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), who found no legal basis to exclude an elective surgery from impairment rating and that SIBTF failed to rebut the applicant's medical evidence.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPre-existing disabilityRatable impairmentElective tubal ligationCervical spineThoracic spineAMA GuidesLabor Code section 4751FergusonProphylactic work restriction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gelb v. Board of Elections

Plaintiff Irving A. Gelb (pro se) filed a case ("Gelb II") against the Board of Elections in the City of New York and its individual members and employees, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights concerning write-in voting procedures in the 1997 elections for Bronx Borough President. This case mirrored an earlier, unsuccessful action ("Gelb I") regarding the 1993 elections. Gelb claimed that the Board failed to provide adequate means or instructions for write-in voting, particularly in primary elections without an "opportunity to ballot" petition. The court denied Gelb's motions for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the Board's procedures were constitutionally permissible, that no pervasive unfairness was demonstrated, and that sufficient state law remedies were available. Consequently, his state law claims were also dismissed.

Election LawWrite-in VotingSummary JudgmentFederal ClaimsState Law RemediesDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corning v. Board of Elections

Justice Fuchsberg dissents from the majority decision concerning two cases related to New York's Election Law. He argues that subdivision 2 of section 8-100 of the Election Law is unconstitutional as it creates unequal voting hours for primary elections across different counties in the state. Fuchsberg asserts that this disparity violates the equal protection clauses of both Federal and State Constitutions, demanding a strict scrutiny test which the State failed to satisfy. He believes the State's justification of convenience and economy is insufficient to infringe upon the fundamental right of suffrage. Therefore, he advocates for affirming the judgment in Barone v Carey and modifying the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Corning v Board of Elections of Albany County to declare the problematic clause unconstitutional, ensuring uniform voting hours for all citizens.

Election LawVoter RightsEqual Protection ClauseStrict Scrutiny TestPrimary ElectionsVoting HoursConstitutional LawDissenting OpinionSuffrageEconomic Considerations
References
15
Case No. ADJ9500046
Regular
Jun 26, 2025

NADINA WARE vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award, where the WCJ found applicant Nadina Ware's combined injuries resulted in permanent total disability and eligibility for SIBTF benefits. SIBTF contended the findings lacked specific detail on eligibility requirements, insufficient contemporaneous evidence of prior disability, and that medical and vocational reports were not substantial evidence. The Appeals Board rescinded the decision, finding the Amended Findings and Award lacked specific findings and explanation for the conclusion of permanent total disability, and that the medical examiners did not adequately assign Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for all pre-existing conditions. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPermanent Total DisabilityPre-existing DisabilitiesApportionmentWhole Person ImpairmentWPIAMA GuidesSubstantial Medical EvidenceVocational Consultant
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 15,478 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