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

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

Claim of Kowalchyk v. Wade Lupe Construction Co.

The claimant, a carpenter over 60 with an 11th-grade education, fractured his back and wrist in August 1985 while on a construction jobsite. Initially, his physician, Dr. James Slavin, considered him totally disabled, and he received total disability benefits from his employer's carrier. However, in December 1985, the employer reduced benefits to a partial disability rate, relying on a report from their consultant, Dr. Edward Pasquarella. The claimant subsequently filed for compensation, leading to a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and ultimately the Workers’ Compensation Board that he had a total industrial disability. The employer appealed this decision, arguing it lacked substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, considering the claimant’s physical limitations, age, work experience, and limited education, concluding he had no marketable skills outside carpentry.

Workers' CompensationTotal Industrial DisabilityPartial DisabilityMedical Testimony ConflictEarning Capacity AssessmentAppellate ReviewVocational RehabilitationAge & Education FactorsCarpenter InjuryScaffold Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Keefe v. Aramatic Refreshment Services Inc.

The claimant had two established workers' compensation claims for back injuries from 2004 and 2009, with benefits equally apportioned. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of benefits for the 2009 claim, specifically whether to use the claimant's 2009 wages or the higher 2004 wages. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the 2009 wages should be used for the 2009 claim, aligning with Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5) and § 15 (7). The Appellate Division affirmed this aspect of the Board's decision. However, the Board's unexplained reduction of a temporary total disability award to a marked temporary partial disability was found to be an error, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Board for further proceedings to address this inconsistency.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuriesDisability BenefitsWage CalculationTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRemittalApportionmentJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1984

Claim of Holmes v. Cornell University

A claimant challenged Cornell University's denial of disability benefits, arguing he was not an academic employee excluded from coverage under the Disability Benefits Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an administrative law judge's decision, ruling the claimant was not engaged in a professional capacity and thus eligible for benefits. Cornell appealed, but the court affirmed the board's decision, finding its interpretation of the statute within its area of competence was not irrational. The court noted Cornell had previously deducted disability benefit payments from the claimant's paycheck, further supporting the board's classification.

Disability Benefits LawProfessional CapacityAcademic EmployeeCoverage ExclusionWorkers' Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPayroll DeductionsEligibility for BenefitsAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golan v. Montefiore Hospital

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Employees (Fund) appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding a claimant pregnancy disability benefits under the Disability Benefits Law. The Fund's disability plan, filed by Montefiore Hospital, covered pregnancy, which was statutorily excluded by Workers’ Compensation Law § 205 (subd 3). The Fund contended the Board lacked jurisdiction over such claims. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 211 and 221, which grant the Board authority over all issues related to filed disability benefit plans. The court held that voluntarily conferred benefits that supersede statutory ones are fully enforceable by the Board, even if they cover disabilities explicitly excluded by statute.

Disability Benefits LawPregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionVoluntarily Conferred BenefitsStatutory ExclusionsAppellate ReviewEmployer Plan FilingBenefit Plan EnforcementWorkers' Compensation Law Article 9Section 211 Workers' Comp Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1995

Claim of Tomlin v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

The claimant, a site manager for 23 years, began experiencing chest pains in February 1984. His employer granted him a medical leave and requested documentation. The claimant's treating physician, Patrick McAndrew, diagnosed essential hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chest pain of undetermined origin. The employer then used a disability claim form as a claim for a self-administered salary continuation plan, paying benefits under it. After an examination by the employer's physician, John Walters, who found no organic heart disease, the employer terminated the claimant, considering his absence a voluntary termination due to lack of a "bona fide" disability. The claimant subsequently filed for statutory disability benefits and a claim for discriminatory discharge with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 241 for retaliation. The Board asserted jurisdiction, found discrimination, but reduced damages due to the claimant's failure to actively seek employment. The employer appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence, but the decision was affirmed.

References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. City of New York

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, a word processor, did not sustain a causally related disability and denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Board found no occupational disease, as the claimant's ailments stemmed from her specific work area and chair, rather than the inherent nature of her employment. This decision was affirmed on appeal, with the court emphasizing that an occupational disease must derive from the very nature of employment, not conditions peculiar to an employee's specific workplace. The court found that the claimant's conditions did not meet the criteria for an occupational disease. Therefore, the denial of benefits was proper.

Occupational DiseaseCausally Related DisabilityWork EnvironmentErgonomicsWorkers' Compensation ClaimBoard Decision AppealAffirmationEmployment ConditionsSpecific Work AreaNature of Employment
References
2
Case No. 532577
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Steven Coll

Claimant Steven Coll sustained neck and left shoulder injuries in a 2016 work accident and received temporary partial disability benefits. He subsequently took a light-duty job as a school security officer but was laid off on June 30, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Coll was not entitled to reduced earnings awards after this date because his job loss was unrelated to his work-related disability. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Coll's unemployment was voluntary for workers' compensation purposes, as his disability did not cause or contribute to his separation from employment. The Court noted that his remedy would be unemployment insurance benefits.

Reduced Earnings AwardsVoluntary UnemploymentLabor Market WithdrawalCOVID-19 Impact on EmploymentWork-Related DisabilityCausation of UnemploymentWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardLight-Duty Employment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 24,133 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