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 Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp.

Claimant, aged 62, sustained a work-related back injury in February 1999, prompting his retirement the following day and the commencement of social security retirement benefits. Although he had planned to work part-time until age 65, he did not seek any employment post-injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to seek alternative work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, despite being deemed permanently partially disabled. The employer and carrier's contention regarding the untimeliness of the appeal was rejected. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' CompensationAppeal timelinessMedical evidenceConflicting evidenceSocial security benefitsRetirementBack injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of O'Shea v. Initial Cleaning Service

Claimant, a carpet cleaner for 19 years, developed lung problems due to chemical exposure and was advised by a physician to stop working with chemicals. He was terminated in 1998 for failing to report to work, after which he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for occupational disease. Initially, a WCLJ awarded benefits, finding chronic obstructive lung disease and permanent partial disability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, denying benefits on the grounds that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence, as the claimant was terminated and desired to continue working. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Lung DiseaseVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketTerminationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewChemical ExposurePermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Advice
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. Hudson Correctional Facility

Claimant, a correction counselor, ceased working in August 1992 at age 52 due to various health issues, including established work-related stress, anxiety, and panic disorder, eventually retiring in July 1995. A WCLJ initially found permanent total disability and a moderate causally related permanent partial disability, deeming the voluntary withdrawal issue moot. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding a moderate partial causally related disability until 1995 but ruling claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market upon retirement, denying further benefits. The appellate court reversed, clarifying that a work-related disability only needs to contribute to, not be the sole cause of, retirement to avoid voluntary withdrawal, and found the medical evidence established total disability at the time of retirement, partially due to work-related conditions.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityStressAnxietyPanic DisorderMedical Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 1997

Claim of Korczyk v. City of Albany

Claimant, a mechanic's helper, sustained a work-related back injury in May 1992. The employer paid workers' compensation benefits until May 1993, then sought to suspend payments alleging claimant's voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that claimant's refusal of a light-duty work offer in April 1993 constituted such a withdrawal. Claimant appealed, asserting her chiropractor advised against the work, but the chiropractor's testimony contradicted this claim. The Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was ultimately affirmed based on substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketLight-duty assignment refusalChiropractor testimonyCredibility issueSubstantial evidenceBoard decision affirmedBack injuryMechanic's helperReduced earnings
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,920 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