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. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03154 [205 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

Matter of Lucks v. Volt Info. SCI

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, leading to permanent partial disability, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before transferring to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 1998. After Lucks' death in 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that CNA was the proper carrier, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a relief was unavailable because the issue of its applicability was not raised until after the January 1, 2014, statutory cutoff date. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, holding that despite the claim accruing before the cutoff, the application for liability transfer to the Special Fund was untimely.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aStatutory Cutoff DateClaim AccrualInsurance Carrier LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilityDisability ClaimMyocardial Infarction Injury
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04413 [162 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Tobin v. Finger Lakes DDSO

Kristi M. Tobin, a support aide, sustained injuries in April 2012 after being assaulted by a client, leading to a workers' compensation claim established for various injuries including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD)/complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of her right face. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded schedule loss of use for vision loss and facial disfigurement. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, classifying claimant's RSD/CRPS and ptosis as a nonschedule permanent partial disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rescinding the prior awards, and remitting the case for further record development regarding loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence supported the nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification due to the claimant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening ptosis, consistent with not receiving both schedule loss of use and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards for the same work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseReflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Facial DisfigurementWage-Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ7026308
Regular
Apr 01, 2011

CARLOS HERRERA vs. OBSTRO HERMITAGE, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board disqualified both the applicant's former counsel, Law Office of Lionel E. Giron, and the defendant's counsel, Tobin-Lucks, due to a conflict of interest. Applicant's attorney, Heather Brandt, failed to obtain informed written consent from her client before seeking and accepting employment with Tobin-Lucks, who represented the opposing party. Sanctions of $250 were imposed on William K. Calderon and the Law Office of Lionel E. Giron for this misconduct. The prior WCJ decision was rescinded, and the case was returned for a new trial with new counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDecision After Reconsiderationdisqualificationsanctionslabor code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561industrial injurylow backheadneck
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tobin v. Barry

Plaintiffs, members of IBEW Local 501, initiated a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its Vice President J.J. Barry, Local 1249, several employer-contractors (Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc., L.K. Com-stock & Co., and Yonkers-Comstock Joint Venture), and their bargaining representative, the Northeastern Line Contractors Chapter (NLCC). The core of the dispute revolved around the IBEW's transfer of work assignment jurisdiction over a Metro North project from Local 501 to Local 1249 within Westchester County. Plaintiffs alleged breaches of the IBEW constitution, violations of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and Section 101(a)(5) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), and breaches of duty of fair representation and contracts by the employer-contractors. The court granted NLCC's motion to dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim against it, but denied other defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust intraunion remedies was excused due to union misdirection, and that their claims were timely filed under the applicable statutes of limitations.

Labor DisputeUnion JurisdictionBreach of Union ConstitutionLMRA Section 301LMRDA Section 101(a)(5)Exhaustion of Internal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
16
Case No. ADJ2514169 (VNO 0556845)
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

Hector Dingle vs. Tobin Lucks

This case involves applicant(s) appealing a decision before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board has dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal as moot. This means the underlying issue raised in the petition is no longer relevant or subject to appeal. The order was filed on July 22, 2014, and served on the listed parties.

Petition for RemovalDismissedMootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ2514169ADJ255943VNO 0556845VNO 0556846Pomona District OfficeRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clearo v. Eurokraft Construction Co.

Claimant sustained an injury while installing a roof on a house owned by Winfred Lucks. The central issue revolved around whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor at the time of the injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that no employer-employee relationship existed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination and consequently affirmed the decision without costs.

Independent Contractor StatusEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation AppealRoofing AccidentSubstantial Evidence ReviewLabor RelationshipAppellate Court AffirmationStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. ADJ663546
Regular
Oct 01, 2009

Sudha Rajender vs. TOBIN LUCKS, MALMQUIST, FIELDS & CAMASTRA

The WCJ found insufficient evidence of significant stress to support a conclusion that work stress contributed to applicant's coronary heart disease. The Board affirmed the WCJ's determination and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSudha RajenderTobin LucksMalmquist Fields Camastracumulative trauma injurymyocardial infarctionQualified Medical EvaluatorDr. Gerald Bessespetition for reconsiderationindustrial causation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oakes v. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust

Darby J. Oakes, an iron worker supervisor, was injured when a forklift caused a steel truss to fall on him at a construction site in Massena, Franklin County, owned by Wal-Mart. He and his wife sued Wal-Mart, Murnane Building Contractors, Inc., and Luck Builders, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, dismissed section 241 (6) and 200 claims against Luck, and denied summary judgment on common-law negligence claims for defendants and Luck. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no "physically significant elevation differential" for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but upholding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-9.8 (e) and the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims due to factual disputes regarding site conditions and notice.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardFalling ObjectSubcontractor LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceForklift AccidentWork Site Safety
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 22 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