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. 76 Misc 2d 769
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1974

Coates v. City of New York

Coates, a former sanitation worker for the City of New York, was involuntarily retired due to an accident disability and subsequently sued to recover monetary compensation for unused terminal leave, accrued vacation time, and unscheduled holiday work periods. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted Coates' motion for summary judgment, awarding him $3,406.53. The City of New York appealed this decision. The appellate court modified the order-judgment by reducing the award to $1,283.62, finding that the collective bargaining agreement did not stipulate cash payments for terminal leave and accrued vacation, nor did statutory authority mandate such benefits upon immediate retirement. However, the court affirmed the portion of the award pertaining to unscheduled holiday work periods, upholding the defendant's liability for that specific claim.

Employment LawPublic Employee BenefitsAccident Disability RetirementSummary Judgment AppealCollective Bargaining AgreementMunicipal LawAdministrative CodeConstitutional LawDamages CalculationWorkers' Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Provenzano

An employer and their insurance carrier appealed a Workmen's Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a bartender, was injured slipping on a public sidewalk while returning home for lunch during an unscheduled Sunday shift. The employer had directed the claimant to go home for lunch but remained subject to recall. Appellants argued this was a conventional off-premises injury, but the court found special circumstances due to the employer's direction and continuous recall, which meant employment was not interrupted. The court affirmed the Board's finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLunch BreakSpecial CircumstancesOff-Premises InjuryEmployer ControlContinuous RecallBartenderPublic Sidewalk
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison v. Arlington Central School District

Gerald Harrison, a former bus driver/custodial worker, sued his employer, Arlington Central School District, and his supervisor George Beckwith, for racial discrimination after being denied unscheduled overtime and a "Relief Driver" position. The District justified its actions by citing Harrison's past record of padding overtime sheets and committing insurance fraud, for which he pleaded guilty. The court found that Harrison failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his misconduct provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the employer's decisions. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Harrison's claims.

DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawCivil Service LawOvertime FraudInsurance FraudRetaliationCollateral EstoppelRes Judicata
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Breeson v. S. Klein Department Stores, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision awarding death benefits. The decedent, a 26-year-old manager, experienced significant physical and emotional strain due to long working hours and anxiety while setting up a new phonograph record department. He died from a ruptured cerebral aneurysm after an exhaustive workday. The Board found that the stress constituted an accidental injury. Appellants argued a lack of substantial evidence, particularly regarding the corroboration of hearsay testimony. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence of an industrial accident.

Death benefitsAccidental injuryPhysical stressEmotional strainArduous workEmployment-related deathCerebral aneurysmWorkmen's Compensation BoardSubstantial evidenceHearsay testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Flores v. Newstar Apparel

A claimant was injured after slipping on ice in the entryway of her employer's building before her workday began. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, ruling the accident was outside the scope of employment. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, prompting an appeal from the employer and its carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'gray area' exception for injuries occurring near the workplace. The court found substantial evidence that a special hazard existed and the entryway had a close association with the employer's premises, as it was 10 feet from the public sidewalk and used exclusively by building workers. An additional appeal for reconsideration by the employer was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySlip and FallCourse of EmploymentSpecial Hazard RuleIngress and EgressBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionCompensabilityWorkers’ Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp.

The dissenting opinion argues to affirm the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, asserting that the claimant, Seymour Fine, met the 'mixed purpose' test for work performed at home. The dissent highlights Fine's regular pattern of working at home, his supervisor's agreement regarding the benefit to the employer, and his dedicated workspace at home. It emphasizes that the accident occurred on a non-regular workday when Fine was carrying work-related materials to continue work at home after visiting his office, suggesting he was working against a deadline. The dissent also addresses the majority's focus on Fine not demanding extra pay, inferring that working at home compensated for his slow pace due to a physical disability, with his supervisor's permission.

Work from HomeSpecial Assignment RuleMixed Purpose TestCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises WorkCommute AccidentEmployer BenefitRegular Work PatternPhysical Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2010

Ball v. Astrue

Plaintiff Lucinda M. Ball sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying her Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended denying the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanding the case for a rehearing. District Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately explain why the Vocational Expert's testimony regarding unscheduled rest breaks, which would eliminate job opportunities, was not followed. The case was thus remanded for a rehearing, with instructions for the ALJ to properly consider all of Plaintiff's impairments and articulate the reasons for accepting or rejecting the vocational expert's determinations.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeDepressive DisorderAsthmaResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertRemandJudgment on the PleadingsSubstantial Evidence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bentvena v. City & Suburban

The claimant sustained a work-related injury in July 2003, leading to an issue raised by the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier regarding voluntary withdrawal from the labor market due to refusal of a light-duty assignment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found that the claimant voluntarily withdrew, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this determination. On appeal by the employer and carrier, the court affirmed the Board's decision. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the employer's proposed three eight-hour workdays were inconsistent with the claimant's medical limitations of five hours per day, not exceeding 25 hours per week, as indicated by the treating chiropractor.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketLight-duty assignmentWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical limitationsChiropractor testimonySubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRefusal of workWork restrictions
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01239
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Siegel v. Garibaldi

Plaintiff Eric S. Siegel commenced a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries after being struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Charles A. Garibaldi on the campus of the Culinary Institute of America, where both were coemployees. The Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 29, finding the accident occurred within the scope of employment. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, as his workday ended when he left the parking lot to drive home. Consequently, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law did not apply.

NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentCoemployee InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCampus AccidentPrivate RoadGoing and Coming RulePersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. & Local 484, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers

This case involves a petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitration award and an employer's cross-motion to confirm it. The core dispute concerns an employee's entitlement to pay for a day missed due to illness during a holiday week in 1959. The employee worked for a short period on Labor Day, was then excused due to illness, and remained ill the following Tuesday. The employer paid for the holiday and other workdays but not for Tuesday, arguing that existing benefits provided a maximum of a normal week's pay. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by modifying the contract. However, the court ruled that the arbitrator acted within his powers by interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the motion to vacate the award was denied, and the cross-motion to confirm the award was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday PaySick PayContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeEmployment LawMotion to VacateMotion to Confirm
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 19 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