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. Cr. No. 03-1295
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2006

In Re Stabile

This case addresses the court's jurisdiction and available remedies concerning alleged improper interference with a court-appointed monitor. The Monitor, appointed in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for the New York Racing Association (NYRA), petitioned the court against respondents Anthony A. Stabile and Stephen E. Saracco for attempts to improperly influence the Monitor after its term ended. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under both an extension clause in the Appointing Order and ancillary jurisdiction. It also determined that the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) was an appropriate basis for relief. The Monitor's request for an injunction against Saracco was denied, as his actions were deemed inappropriate but not severe enough to warrant an order, given his status as an attorney. However, an evidentiary hearing was ordered for Stabile to resolve disputed facts regarding his alleged threats and to determine the necessity of an injunction.

Court-appointed monitorDeferred prosecution agreementAll Writs ActSubject matter jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionInjunctionCriminal procedureCorporate malfeasanceInterference with court orderNew York Racing Association
References
40
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02631
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

Matter of Stabile v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Is., Inc.

Claimant Anthony Stabile, a nurse, experienced an unwitnessed cardiac arrest in his employer's parking lot after leaving work. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, applying the presumption under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 due to the unwitnessed nature of the accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the employer and carrier successfully rebutted the presumption with a medical consultant's testimony. The consultant opined that Stabile's condition was due to preexisting conditions and not causally related to his work activities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the claimant failed to demonstrate a causal relation to work.

Workers' CompensationCardiac ArrestCausal RelationUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionsEmployment InjuryNurse
References
9
Case No. CV-23-1971
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Stabile

Claimant Anthony Stabile, a nurse, sought workers' compensation benefits after experiencing an unwitnessed cardiac arrest in his employer's parking lot. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim under the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 presumption. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption with medical testimony linking the cardiac event to claimant's preexisting conditions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that its findings were supported by substantial evidence and that claimant failed to prove a causal link between his condition and employment. The court emphasized that while the statutory presumption applies to unwitnessed accidents, it does not establish the occurrence of an accident itself and can be rebutted by contrary substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentCardiac ArrestPreexisting ConditionsMedical EvidenceStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of Presumption
References
9
Case No. ADJ2736713 (VNO 0375817)
Regular
Nov 12, 2009

WILLIAM AVRIT vs. CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES

The WCAB reversed the WCJ's order of restitution, finding that the WCJ lacked statutory authority to award reimbursement and that the equities did not favor SCIF's claim for reimbursement due to transactional stability.

Nations Surgery CenterSCIFrestitutionoverpaymenttransactional stabilityequitable reliefLabor Code section 4625lien claimantmedical treatment chargesunjust enrichment
References
2
Case No. 03 CR 1392 (S-2)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

United States v. New York Racing Ass'n

This case addresses a petition by a court-appointed monitor, Getnick & Getnick, against Anthony A. Stabile and attorney Stephen E. Saracco for alleged improper interference. Stabile, an independent contractor, was accused of threatening a monitor investigator and refusing to show credentials. Saracco, Stabile's attorney, allegedly contacted the former monitor to pressure for Stabile's credentials reinstatement and threatened litigation. The Court affirmed its subject matter and ancillary jurisdiction under the All Writs Act. While denying the injunction against Saracco, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing for Stabile to resolve factual disputes regarding his alleged threats and disparaging remarks.

Court-appointed monitorDeferred prosecution agreementAll Writs ActSubject matter jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionInjunctionCriminal procedureCorporate governanceJudicial authorityThird-party interference
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gress v. Brown

Plaintiffs, seasonal sanitation employees of the City of Buffalo, initiated a class action alleging that the City and Mayor Byron Brown failed to pay them in accordance with the Buffalo Living Wage Ordinance. Defendants, including the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA), appealed a judgment that granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, declaring the BFSA lacked authority to freeze their wages. The court rejected defendants' argument that the action was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, thus a four-month statute of limitations did not apply, finding the action primarily sought damages for wage violations. It further affirmed that the BFSA's wage freeze was inapplicable to plaintiffs because their wage increases stemmed from the Living Wage Ordinance, not a collective bargaining agreement, placing them outside the BFSA's authority.

Living Wage OrdinanceWage DisputeClass ActionBuffalo Fiscal Stability AuthorityPublic Authorities LawMunicipal EmployeesWage FreezeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. CA 10-01673
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

GRESS, MARLINO v. BROWN, BYRON

Plaintiffs, seasonal sanitation employees of the City of Buffalo, initiated a class action against Byron Brown, as Mayor, the City of Buffalo, and the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA). They sought damages alleging violations of the Buffalo Living Wage Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the BFSA lacked the authority to freeze their wages, and denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the action should have been brought as a CPLR article 78 proceeding and concluded that the BFSA's statutory power to freeze wages did not apply to the plaintiffs because their wage increases were governed by the Living Wage Ordinance, not collective bargaining agreements.

Class ActionWage FreezeLiving Wage OrdinancePublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawSeasonal WorkersEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ1775959 (ANA 0387306) ADJ2257120 (ANA 0386617)
Regular
May 17, 2010

SILVIA MORA vs. STEELCASE, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision that ordered a lien claimant to reimburse the defendant for chiropractic treatment exceeding the statutory limit. The WCAB held that Labor Code section 4604.5(d)(1) limits chiropractic visits but does not authorize restitution for voluntary payment of excessive treatment. Citing the equitable principles established in *American Psychometric Consultants, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Hurtado)*, the Board found that both parties were equally aware of the legal limits, and the defendant voluntarily paid the excess charges. The WCAB emphasized transactional stability, stating that undoing such payments would negatively impact the workers' compensation system.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4604.5(d)(1)Chiropractic visitsReimbursementPetition for ReimbursementMedical treatment lienEquitable restitution
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smolicz v. Fitzgerald

Decedent, Frank Koestner, died in the September 11, 2001 attacks while working at the World Trade Center. His former wife, the claimant, filed for workers' compensation death benefits for their daughter, which were initially awarded. Michelle Stabile subsequently claimed entitlement to a portion of these benefits as the decedent's domestic partner, a claim initially denied by a workers' compensation law judge but reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which awarded Stabile benefits. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing that Stabile did not meet the statutory definition of a domestic partner, specifically lacking dependence on the decedent for support. The court found insufficient evidence to establish Stabile's dependence or mutual interdependence with the decedent, despite their engagement and plans to marry. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Death benefitsDomestic partnershipWorkers' Compensation LawDependency for supportStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewFactual questionSubstantial evidenceRemandSeptember 11, 2001 attacks
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1997

Garcia v. 1122 East 180th Street Corp.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained serious injuries after falling 15-20 feet from a scaffold at a school construction site. The scaffold, designed with wheel locks for stability, had broken locks, leading the plaintiff to use sheetrock pieces to stabilize it, and he further placed an A-frame ladder atop the scaffold to gain additional height. The makeshift stabilization failed, causing the scaffold to move, overturn, and the plaintiff to fall. The IAS Court initially denied partial summary judgment on liability, citing unresolved factual issues, but the appellate court disagreed, finding the plaintiff's proofs unrebutted and the factual issues immaterial. The court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, imposing absolute liability on the defendant since the scaffold failed to provide proper protection, regardless of the plaintiff's own negligence or claims of being a "recalcitrant worker," thus reversing the lower court's decision and granting summary judgment on liability.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorker SafetyElevated WorkPersonal InjuryAppellate Division
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 192 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