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. Docket No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Rubet v. Commissioner of Social Security

Maria Rubet, claiming disability due to a nervous condition since October 1993, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Following a remand and a subsequent hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again found Rubet not disabled, a determination adopted by the Commissioner. Rubet failed to respond to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and a court order. The Court, after reviewing the record and adopting the Commissioner's analysis, found substantial evidence, including medical evaluations, to support the ALJ's finding that Rubet was not disabled. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social SecuritySSI BenefitsDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentAppealsJudicial ReviewCommissioner Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Tammy Rice sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The District Court considered the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff had severe impairments of mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and mild degenerative joint disease of the knees but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions, concluding she was not disabled. The Court found the Commissioner's decision supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(c)Lumbar Spine
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Door Specialties, Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor

The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's decision regarding the applicability of Labor Law § 220, which mandates prevailing wages, to small public projects. The petitioner argued that the procedural provisions of the statute suggested an exclusion for such projects. However, the Commissioner properly rejected this argument, a decision affirmed by the court. The court found no unequivocal indication in the statute to exclude small, unbid projects from prevailing wage requirements. It emphasized the overriding purpose of Labor Law § 220 to protect laborers and mechanics, irrespective of project size, and noted that the failure of public agencies to provide wage rate schedules does not absolve contractors of their prevailing wage obligations.

Labor LawPrevailing WagePublic ProjectsSmall ProjectsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentWorker ProtectionContractor ObligationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lancaster Development, Inc. v. Ross

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner, a nonunion contractor, challenged a determination by the Industrial Commissioner regarding supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB). The petitioner, contracted by the New York State Department of Transportation, was required under Labor Law § 220 to provide SUB for operating engineers. The petitioner provided health and life insurance as SUB through a trust, rather than direct cash payments. The Industrial Commissioner concluded that the petitioner's method was inadequate and did not comply with the statutory mandate, which did not allow for such unilateral substitutions. The court confirmed the Industrial Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and a reasonable interpretation of the statute, and dismissed the petition.

Labor Law § 220Supplemental Unemployment BenefitsPrevailing Wage LawPublic Works ContractCPLR Article 78Industrial Commissioner DeterminationContractor ObligationsEmployee BenefitsNonunion ContractorStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. Callahan

Richard Bridges, a former New York City Police Detective, sought judicial review of a final administrative determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied his application for social security disability insurance benefits. Bridges challenged the Commissioner's finding that he was not 'disabled' and could perform sedentary work, despite suffering from multiple work-related injuries to his back and knee. The District Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by substituting his own judgment for that of Bridges' treating physician and by not providing substantial evidence to support the finding that Bridges could perform sedentary work. The court, therefore, denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Bridges' motion, remanding the case for the calculation of benefits.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsSedentary WorkTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySpinal InjuriesKnee InjuriesHerniated Discs
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiBlasi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Frank DiBlasi sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits, citing disability due to depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, and limb numbness. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. DiBlasi appealed, arguing the Appeals Council failed to consider new material evidence (Dr. Rinzler's assessment), erred by not remanding for clarification of a prior medical opinion, and ignored a psychiatrist's letter. The court found the new evidence cumulative and not material, and that earlier records consistently reflected DiBlasi's difficulties. Ultimately, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that DiBlasi could perform simple, routine, unskilled tasks with minimal stress and contact, and that such jobs exist in the national economy. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security BenefitsDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentDepressionDiabetesGlobal Assessment of Functioning
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Kenneth Owen Browne sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Browne alleged disability since December 2007 due to conditions like degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously found Browne not disabled, concluding he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court also addressed and rejected Browne's arguments regarding the ALJ's application of the treating physician rule, and alleged failures to consider his obesity and medication side effects.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewResidual functional capacityTreating physician ruleSubstantial evidenceAdministrative Law JudgeMedical evidenceObesityMedication side effects
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. P.S.G. Construction Co.

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund obtained a judgment against Bridgeworks for unpaid workers' compensation premiums. Bridgeworks, prior to its dissolution and without satisfying the judgment, made loans to FSG Construction Co., Inc. The Commissioners then commenced a special proceeding against FSG, alleging the loans were fraudulent under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a. The Supreme Court denied the petition, citing the six-year statute of limitations. This appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that the statute of limitations began from the date of judgment entry (April 24, 2009), making the proceeding commenced on April 13, 2010, timely. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the merits.

Statute of LimitationsFraudulent ConveyanceDebtor and Creditor LawWorkers' Compensation PremiumsUnpaid LoansAppellate ReviewJudgment EnforcementKings CountySpecial ProceedingConstructive Fraud
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montanez v. Berryhill

Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. The plaintiff's application for supplemental security income, alleging an inability to work since December 5, 2013, was denied by an Administrative Law Judge on March 30, 2016, a decision which became final on July 3, 2017, after the Appeals Council denied review. The court found that the ALJ erred in his consideration of medical opinions, failing to provide sufficient explanation for the weight given to various medical sources and improperly substituting his own expertise for competent medical opinion by cherry-picking evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, the Commissioner's cross-motion is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings to reassess the evidence and provide detailed reasoning for all findings.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeMedical OpinionsResidual Functional CapacitySchizophreniaRemandSubstantial EvidenceLegal ErrorFederal Court Appeal
References
9
Case No. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,632 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