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

Mylette v. Mylette

The plaintiff moved to have the defendant's disability pension, from the New York City Police Pension Fund, classified as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (b). The defendant, a former New York City police officer, received the disability pension after a line-of-duty knee injury, terminating his employment after 12 years, short of the 15 years required for vesting. The court reviewed legal precedents from various states and New York, which generally treat disability pensions as separate property, particularly when compensating for personal injuries rather than deferred compensation. The court found that the defendant's pension was purely compensation for his injury, distinguishing it from retirement benefits, and that he had no option to choose a regular retirement package. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the disability pension is the defendant's separate property.

Domestic Relations LawDisability PensionMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionSeparate PropertyPolice Pension FundPersonal Injury CompensationNonvested BenefitsFamily LawProperty Classification
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medoy v. Warnaco Employees' Long Term Disability Insurance Plan

Plaintiff, Audrey Medoy, sued Warnaco Employees’ Long Term Disability Insurance Plan and Warnaco, Inc. (Defendants) under ERISA, alleging wrongful termination of disability benefits, failure to provide requested documents, and failure to retain claims records. Medoy's disability benefits were discontinued in 1987 without notice. After years of requesting information and appealing the decision, which was hampered by the destruction of her claims file, she filed this action in 1997. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were untimely, that Medoy was not a 'participant' entitled to disclosure, and that ERISA § 1027 did not cover claims records. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on all grounds, finding her claims timely, her status as a 'participant' colorable, and claims records subject to retention under ERISA § 1027.

ERISALong-term Disability BenefitsStatute of LimitationsFailure to DiscloseRecord RetentionFutility ExceptionAccrual of ActionPlan Administrator DutiesParticipant StatusMotion to Dismiss
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. 535144
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Hope Jennings

Hope J. Jennings, a supermarket clerk, sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 2007, leading to established workers' compensation benefits. She was classified with a nonschedule permanent partial disability in 2012, subject to a durational cap for wage loss benefits, which expired in November 2018. Following a causally-related cervical fusion surgery in July 2019, claimant sought temporary total disability benefits, arguing these should not count towards the permanent partial disability cap. The Workers' Compensation Board, on full Board review, rescinded an earlier decision and ruled that the expiration of the durational cap did not preclude claimant from seeking temporary total disability benefits after subsequent surgeries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that temporary total disability benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (2) are distinct from permanent partial disability benefits under § 15 (3) (w) and are not subject to the latter's durational caps.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityDurational CapWage Loss BenefitsCervical Fusion SurgeryShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 15
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmidt v. Falls Dodge, Inc.

The claimant was awarded a 21.43% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss in 2007. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this award was not subject to temporary disability benefits the claimant was already receiving from earlier workers' compensation cases. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that a Court of Appeals decision overruled prior holdings regarding the overlap of schedule and nonschedule awards. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between schedule awards for future earnings loss and nonschedule awards for temporary disability during a limited time frame, concluding they do not overlap.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary DisabilityBinaural Hearing LossAward OverlapAppellate DecisionInsurance FundEmployer LiabilityMedical BenefitsEarnings Loss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bullard v. St. Mary's Hospital

Claimant, a secretary at St. Mary's Hospital, developed rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled it an occupational disease and awarded compensation. Liability was apportioned among three employers: Rochester Savings Bank, Woodward Health Center, and St. Mary's Hospital. The Special Disability Fund (SDF) was deemed liable for benefits after the initial 104-week disability period. SDF appealed, contending its reimbursement should be limited to St. Mary's Hospital's one-third share. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Workers' Compensation Law § 44 makes the last employer (St. Mary's) responsible for total compensation, and Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) requires SDF to fully reimburse the employer's carrier, Sedgwick James, for benefits paid after 104 weeks.

Occupational DiseaseRheumatoid ArthritisPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementWorkers' Compensation LawLast Employer LiabilityInsurance CarrierWorkers' Compensation Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2004

Lansberry v. Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc.

Claimant suffered a compensable back injury in July 2002, leading to a temporary disability award. In July 2003, he filed a separate claim for work-related binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled that the schedule loss of use award was subject to the temporary disability award for the back injury. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, stating that the schedule loss of use award was not subject to the temporary disability benefits. The Board based its decision on *Matter of Miller v North Syracuse Cent. School Dist.*, concluding that temporary awards for loss of income during a finite period do not overlap with schedule awards for future loss of earnings due to a permanent condition.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary DisabilityBinaural Hearing LossBack InjuryAward OverlapPermanent Injury ClassificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionConcurrent Awards
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsyth v. Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office

The claimant, a lifeguard, sustained head and shoulder injuries in an automobile accident while working for the Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office. His workers' compensation benefits were calculated based on concurrent employment, including seasonal work for the City of New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the finding of concurrent employment, a decision which was subsequently appealed by the employer and its carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of concurrent employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 [6], given the claimant's long history of working for both employers during the same periods.

concurrent employmentaverage weekly wageworkers' compensationlifeguard injuryseasonal employmentappellate reviewNew York labor law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,265 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