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

Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n, Local 94 v. City of New York

The Uniformed Firefighters Association (UFA) and individual firefighters sued the City of New York, challenging the denial of seniority credit for promotional purposes to firefighters initially re-employed under federal programs (CETA and HUD) in "provisional" capacities after layoffs. Plaintiffs argued violations of the CETA statute and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court found no private right of action under CETA, asserting that its grievance procedures were exclusive. The court also determined that the City had a rational basis for distinguishing between provisional and permanent employees regarding seniority, citing New York Civil Service Law requirements. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was granted.

Seniority RightsProvisional EmploymentCETA ProgramHUD ProgramCivil Service LawEqual Protection ClauseMotion to DismissFederal FundingBudgetary CrisisFirefighters
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Cohoes v. Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562

The City of Cohoes, as petitioner, sought to prevent arbitration initiated by the Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, concerning "light duty" assignments for "nonworking" firefighters under General Municipal Law § 207-a (3). The union argued for due process hearings and the arbitrability of these assignments based on their collective bargaining agreement. Justice Harold J. Hughes, however, ruled that issues related to General Municipal Law § 207-a (3) are not subject to arbitration. The court emphasized a strong public policy and established decisional law which supports municipal employers' flexibility in assigning light duty and deems the statute self-contained, separate from contractual arbitration. Consequently, the petitioner's application to stay arbitration was granted, with the court noting that any abuse of employer discretion remains subject to judicial review.

Arbitration StayGeneral Municipal Law 207-aLight DutyFirefighter BenefitsPublic Policy ExceptionCollective BargainingEmployer AuthorityDisabled EmployeesTaylor LawMunicipal Employers
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02174
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2022

Matter of City of Troy (Troy Uniformed Firefighters Assn., Local 86 IAFF, AFL-CIO)

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Troy against a Supreme Court order that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Troy Uniformed Firefighters Association. The dispute arose from the City's implementation of COVID-19 pandemic executive orders, which resulted in non-essential civilian employees working from home or taking leave, while essential firefighters remained on duty. The union filed a grievance seeking equal paid time off or monetary compensation for its members. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that arbitration of the dispute was precluded as a matter of public policy. The court reasoned that the City's actions were a required compliance with statewide public health directives during an extraordinary emergency, and therefore, could not constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement that would warrant arbitration.

ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementCOVID-19 PandemicExecutive OrdersEssential WorkersGrievanceAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawLabor Relations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2015

Matter of Newbill v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation crew chief, injured his right ankle and foot at work and was awarded disability benefits. His self-insured employer paid his full weekly wages during a period of disability and timely sought reimbursement for these advanced payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the employer's reimbursement request against a 20% schedule loss of use award for the right foot. The Board affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed, arguing that reimbursement should not cover periods where no compensation awards were initially made. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that an employer is entitled to full reimbursement from a schedule loss of use award for advanced wages paid during disability, as schedule awards are not allocable to specific periods of lost work.

Schedule Loss of UseReimbursementAdvanced Wage PaymentsDisability BenefitsEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityTimely Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Guarascio v. Spargo Wire Co.

The claimant, a truck driver, suffered work-related back and shoulder injuries in October 1995. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier paid benefits. In 2000, the carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) for these payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim in 2002 and later found the claimant permanently partially disabled, ruling on apportionment but deferring the reimbursement issue. The WCLJ subsequently found the carrier’s request for reimbursement timely. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. This appeal concerns the Board’s ruling that the carrier’s C-250 claim for reimbursement was timely filed within the statutory 52-week period, despite the underlying claim documents being posted by the Board in 2000.

ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundTimeliness of ClaimPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawPreexisting ImpairmentWork-related InjuryC-250 ClaimStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Simpson v. Glen Aubrey Fire Co.

A volunteer fireman suffered an acute lumbosacral strain requiring frequent hospital and doctor visits. He sought reimbursement for 290 miles of travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Board approved reimbursement at 20 cents per mile, leading to this appeal. The court examined whether travel expenses for medical treatment are reimbursable under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law and Workers’ Compensation Law. It concluded that access to medical treatment implies the financial means to obtain it, upholding the humanitarian goals of the legislation.

Volunteer FiremanLumbosacral StrainMileage ReimbursementTravel ExpensesMedical TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawVolunteer Firemen's Benefit LawStatutory InterpretationRemedial LawLiberal Construction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neacosia v. New York Power Authority

The claimant, a nuclear security guard employed by the New York Power Authority, was required by his employer to wear and maintain a uniform. The employer covered cleaning costs, either directly through accounts at specific establishments or by reimbursement. On May 17, 1991, after his shift, the claimant took his uniforms to an approved cleaner in Oswego. While en route home from the cleaner, he was involved in an accident on State Route 104. The Workers' Compensation Board found a sufficient nexus between the uniform cleaning, which served the employer's purpose of having presentably uniformed guards, and the claimant's travel, thereby extending the scope of his employment. The Board concluded the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The dissenting opinion argues that this conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and should have been affirmed. However, the overall order was to reverse the Board's decision and dismiss the claim.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentUniform CleaningTravel AccidentEmployer LiabilityNexusStipulated FactsDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Texas Builders Insurance Co.

The case involves an appeal by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Subsequent Injury Fund, and its Executive Director (collectively "the Commission") against Texas Builders Insurance Company (TBIC). The Commission appealed a trial court's judgment that declared TBIC was entitled to reimbursement from the Fund under Texas Labor Code section 410.205(c) and awarded TBIC attorney's fees. The appellate court addressed three core issues: (1) whether TBIC could sue for enforcement of its reimbursement rights, concluding that the Texas Labor Code section 410.205(c) waived sovereign immunity and authorized a direct suit; (2) whether the Commission had the discretion to deny TBIC's reimbursement claim after a district court granted a no-answer default judgment, determining that the statutory language was mandatory for the Commission; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, which the court affirmed. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding TBIC's right to reimbursement and the award of attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation ActSubsequent Injury FundSovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewDefault JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Procedure ActInsurance Carrier Reimbursement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poupard v. Mohonasen Central School District

The claimant, a librarian, sustained an employment-related injury. Following her injury, she received full salary for 27 weeks under a collective bargaining agreement, and then used 23 days of accumulated sick leave. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments. The referee and the Workers’ Compensation Board initially granted the full reimbursement. On appeal, the court modified the decision, holding that wages paid from accumulated sick leave, acquired through a collective bargaining agreement, are compulsory payments and thus not reimbursable under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (subd 4, par [a]). The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this ruling, with costs awarded to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementSick LeaveCollective Bargaining AgreementAdvance PaymentsOccupational DisabilityStatutory LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment InjuryReferee Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,681 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