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 Brown v. Highways Displays, Inc.

Judge Reynolds dissents, arguing for the reversal of the board's decision to award death benefits. The board had found the deceased claimant's work activities, including operating a punch, carrying angle irons, and placing a cutting machine, sufficiently strenuous to precipitate a myocardial infarction. However, Judge Reynolds contends that the record lacks adequate evidence to substantiate the extent of the decedent's involvement in such strenuous activities just prior to his collapse. He highlights the absence of proof for key strenuous tasks and notes that medical testimony supporting causal relationship was based on an unsubstantiated assumption of heavy work. The dissent concludes that the record does not support the finding of causal relationship or that the work entailed greater exertion than the ordinary wear and tear of life.

Myocardial InfarctionDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipStrenuous WorkSubstantial EvidenceDissenting OpinionWorkers' Compensation BoardScope of EmploymentHeart AttackOccupational Disease
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolodynski v. Aviv Knitwear Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning a decedent's death. The decedent, working alone, was found deceased at work due to occlusive coronary arteriosclerosis. Medical testimony, presented hypothetically, suggested that his unusually strenuous work due to a co-worker's absence contributed to his death. The Board found the death causally related to an accidental injury due to excessively arduous and strenuous work activities. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence despite conflicting testimony and the lack of direct evidence regarding the decedent's exact work activities on the night of death.

Accidental InjuryCausally Related DeathStrenuous WorkCoronary ArteriosclerosisSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedInference from FactsConflicting TestimonyDecedent's Death
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1999

Claim of Wilson v. Reddy Construction Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on January 27, 1999. The Board had ruled that the death of the claimant's decedent was not causally related to his employment, thereby denying her claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. The decedent, a shop supervisor and diesel mechanic, suffered a fatal myocardial infarction on April 22, 1994. The claimant contended that the death resulted from stressful and strenuous work activities, invoking the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). However, the Board found that the employer successfully rebutted this presumption with evidence indicating the death was solely due to the decedent's significant preexisting coronary risk factors. The court affirmed the Board's decision, highlighting the employer's consulting cardiologist's testimony that the myocardial infarction was caused exclusively by preexisting conditions like heavy smoking and family history, unrelated to employment activity. Furthermore, a co-worker testified that the decedent had not been assigned strenuous tasks and was doing paperwork on the day of his death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMyocardial InfarctionCausationEmployment-Related DeathPreexisting ConditionsPresumption of CompensabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Rebuttal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Furlin v. V. A. W. of America

The claimant, a furnace operator, suffered a myocardial infarction on October 18, 1973, after performing arduous and strenuous work activities, including lifting heavy metal bars and stirring molten metal with a heavy rake. He was diagnosed with a heart attack after experiencing chest pains during his shift. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that his disability was a result of a work-related accident, despite a pre-existing heart condition. This decision was appealed, challenging the finding of strenuous effort and causal relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the claimant's work was strenuous and directly contributed to his heart injury, even with conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionHeart AttackWork-Related InjuryStrenuous EffortCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidencePre-existing Pathology
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,427 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