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

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. 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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02156 [215 AD3d 1201]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Holder v. Office for People with Dev. Disabilities

Claimant's husband, a house manager for the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, contracted COVID-19 and passed away in March 2020. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging his death was causally related to his employment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove COVID-19 was prevalent in the decedent's work environment prior to his symptoms. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing that the decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment.

COVID-19 DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationEmployment ExposureHouse ManagerGroup HomeBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parish v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a correction officer, was injured in April 1999 and May 2004, leading to her being placed on leave without pay. She applied for disability retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied. The Hearing Officer found the disability retirement application untimely and that the injury was not a result of a direct act of an inmate for performance of duty benefits. The Respondent adopted these findings, leading to this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, dismissing the petition, finding the application for disability benefits untimely and agreeing that a floor waxing by an inmate does not constitute an 'act of an inmate' for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty DisabilityCorrection OfficerTimeliness of ApplicationAct of an InmateWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Leave of AbsenceCPLR Article 78New York LawPublic Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Krausa v. Totales Debevoise Corp.

Walter Krausa's 1994 claim for silicosis was established, leading to his classification as permanently totally disabled, and his workers' compensation carrier, the State Insurance Fund, became eligible for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. After Krausa's death in 2007, his widow filed for death benefits, which were awarded by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, who simultaneously discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability. The carrier appealed this decision, seeking continued reimbursement, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied their request. This appellate court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that the statutory language regarding the "date of accident or date of disablement" refers to the original disablement date of September 24, 1992, not the date of death, and that death is considered a consequence of the original injury, not a new accident. Therefore, the court concluded that the carrier was indeed entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationSilicosisOccupational DiseaseSpecial Disability FundReimbursementDeath BenefitsStatutory InterpretationDate of DisablementDate of AccidentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1980

Claim of Butts v. Ward La France Trucking Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board found claimant’s disability to be 45% attributable to a March 1976 work accident, 10% to an August 1977 nonrelated accident, and 45% to a November 1977 work accident. The employer's carrier for the second work accident appealed the 45% apportionment. The court found no substantial evidence to support the Board's apportionment, citing testimonies from Dr. Burke, who attributed 90% of disability to the first work accident, and Dr. Corradini, who believed the first accident's disability ended by January 1977 and the current disability was primarily from the nonrelated accident. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Disability ApportionmentWork-Related InjuryNon-Related InjuryMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionRemittal for Further ProceedingsInsurance Carrier Dispute
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,934 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