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. ADJ1688022 (VNO 0558018)
Regular
May 03, 2010

RONALD TORRES vs. FOREVER 21, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a worker injured playing soccer off-duty on company property. The employer argued the injury was not compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as it was voluntary recreational activity. The Board reversed the initial finding, holding that the worker's voluntary participation in the soccer game, which was not required by or a reasonable expectancy of employment, fell outside the scope of workers' compensation coverage. Therefore, the applicant's claim for benefits for his shoulder injury was denied.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)Ezzy v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.off-duty recreational activityvoluntary participationreasonable expectancy of employmentexpressly or impliedly requiredsoccer game injuryindustrial injuryleft shouldercompensable injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ9174605
Regular
May 12, 2015

WALTER SIMON vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE

This case involves a police officer injured while off-duty hiking with his dog on a steep trail. The City of Vacaville argued the injury was not compensable under Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as it was voluntary recreational activity not connected to employment. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial award, and found the injury non-industrial. This decision was based on the applicant's subjective belief being objectively unreasonable given the limitations of his employer's Individual Fitness Plan, which excluded off-road activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)industrial injuryoff-duty exercisepolice officerrecreational activityreasonable expectancy of employmentIndividual Fitness Planpetition for reconsiderationsubjective belief
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2009

Claim of Hester v. Homemakers Upstate Group

In 2006, the claimant sustained compensable right hip and back injuries as a home health aide, resulting in a permanent partial disability. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant attached to the labor market, but the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed this determination, ruling that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn. The court affirmed the Board's decision on appeal, emphasizing the claimant's obligation to demonstrate attachment to the labor market by actively seeking employment within medical restrictions after a permanent partial disability finding. The claimant admitted to not having searched for work since the injury and had no future plans to do so. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalMedical RestrictionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaimant ObligationsEmployment SearchHome Health Aide
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. Westchester County P.R.C.

Plaintiff Todd Dean filed an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation and Westchester County. He alleged disability discrimination, including wrongful termination, failure to hire, failure to promote, and unequal terms of employment, citing depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder as his disabilities. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaints, arguing a failure to adequately plead a disability under the ADA and discriminatory treatment. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice, based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that his alleged impairment substantially limited a major life activity as legally defined. The court also disregarded the defendant's motion under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ADADisability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFailure to PromoteMajor Life ActivitySubstantial LimitationDepressionAnxietyPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorosz v. Green & Seifter

The case concerns a workers' compensation claim filed by the widow of an accountant who died from a heart attack while bowling in a league sponsored by a client of his firm. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, ruling that the death did not arise out of employment, as the bowling was a voluntary, off-duty athletic activity. This decision was based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, which restricts benefits for such activities unless the employer required participation, compensated the employee, or sponsored the activity. The Appellate Division upheld the Board's determination, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no evidence that the employer met any of the statutory criteria for compensation. The court emphasized that a benefit to the employer alone is not sufficient, and the activity did not constitute part of the employee's work-related duties.

Workers' CompensationOff-Duty ActivityAthletic InjuryEmployer SponsorshipVoluntary ParticipationWork-Related DutiesHeart AttackStatutory InterpretationNew York LawAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,765 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