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

Claim of Macareno v. Son Yeng Produce, Inc.

A claimant sustained injuries while working as a delivery person for Son Yeng Produce, Inc., subsequently filing a workers' compensation claim. After several hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding the claimant a 10% schedule loss of use of the left foot and confirming the employment relationship. Son Yeng Produce, Inc. sought a rehearing from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing lack of notice for a crucial hearing and disputing the employment relationship. The Board denied this application, noting that Son Yeng had proper notification and prior opportunities to contest the employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureRehearing ApplicationNotice RequirementEmployment StatusCausal RelationshipSchedule Loss of UseJudicial DiscretionDue Process
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02519 [182 AD3d 966]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Martinez v. New York Produce

Claimant Carlos Martinez, a delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 2017 due to work-related head injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a traumatic brain injury but later denied an amendment to include bilateral knee injuries. Martinez, represented by counsel, sought Board review of the WCLJ's August 2018 decision. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this application, citing non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) as it failed to specify when an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the application incomplete.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Objection TimingWCLJ DecisionTraumatic Brain Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sarbo v. Tri-Valley Plumbing & Heating

Claimant, a sheet metal installer, suffered a compensable back injury in August 2010. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a 55% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Workers’ Compensation Board later modified this decision, increasing the loss of wage-earning capacity to 60% and reducing wage-earning capacity to 40%, by considering vocational factors in addition to medical impairment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this modification. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling that the Board was authorized to consider vocational factors when determining wage-earning capacity under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a), and found substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination.

Permanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityVocational factorsWorkers' Compensation BoardIndependent medical examinerAppellate reviewAffirmationBack injuryWorkers' compensation ratesStatutory interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Petrillo v. Comp USA

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found she violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a and disqualified her from future wage replacement benefits. The employer's workers' compensation carrier alleged claimant failed to report employment while receiving benefits, specifically a part-time training position at a florist. Claimant initially testified she was unpaid but later admitted receiving $430, though she maintained it was for vocational evaluation, not actual employment. The Board found claimant made false representations regarding material facts and imposed permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence and the discretionary penalty warranted.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudMisrepresentationPermanent DisqualificationWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionFalse Representation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06781 [222 AD3d 1291]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2023

Matter of Reyes v. Nationwide Furniture Installers

Claimant Audis Reyes, a construction worker, established a workers' compensation claim in 2018 for causally-related chronic rhinitis, chronic sinusitis, asthma, and drug-induced diabetes following cleanup work after the World Trade Center attacks. He was initially classified with a permanent partial disability and a 55% wage-earning capacity. Reyes sought reclassification to a total industrial disability, which was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board properly considered vocational factors and that its determination of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence from vocational rehabilitation experts.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Industrial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityVocational FactorsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorld Trade Center ClaimsChronic RhinitisAsthma
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Matter of Kelly v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 22,869 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