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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anticola v. Tops Markets

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant had a work-related back injury and received benefits, but a period of awards from February to October 2006 was held in abeyance. The employer repeatedly attempted to shift liability to the Special Fund, arguing the case was "truly closed" by an August 2008 WCLJ decision. However, the Board and WCLJs consistently found the case was never truly closed due to the unresolved abeyance period and the employer's subsequent actions in 2012. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the case remained open, thus rendering the liability transfer premature.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCase ReopeningCase ClosureLiability TransferAbeyance of AwardsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceNew York State Workers' Compensation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2000

Claim of Davis v. T.J. Madden Construction Co.

Claimant suffered two work-related knee injuries in 1988 and 1992, leading to separate compensation cases. In April 1999, an application to reopen the 1988 case was filed, supported by a medical report indicating a change in the claimant's condition. The carrier for the 1988 case sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and requested reopening of the 1992 case. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Law Judge's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability and placing Travelers Property Casualty (1992 carrier) back on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the April 1999 medical report, despite explicitly referencing only the 1988 case, constituted sufficient notice to reopen the interconnected 1992 case within the seven-year statutory period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftStatute of LimitationsMedical Report as NoticeChange in ConditionKnee InjuryApportionmentBoard DecisionAppeal
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02559
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Ortega v. Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.

The plaintiff Rene Ortega was injured after falling from a roof while working as a foreman for a subcontractor, Golden Hammer Construction Group, Corp., which was working for Panther Siding & Windows, Inc. Ortega sued Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., established it was neither the general contractor nor an agent of the owner at the accident site, thus lacking the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Ortega failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryFall from heightLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorConstruction AccidentElevation-related riskSafety devices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2004

Belleville v. Madame Pirie's, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991 and began receiving workers' compensation benefits. After a third-party personal injury action settlement in 1994, the case was closed in October 1998 with no present deficiency for compensation payments. In 2004, the case was reopened due to a possible new causally connected injury. A WCLJ found no compensable lost time from April 1998 to July 2004, authorized medical treatment, and directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was responsible. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that the time periods specified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (8) were met due to the passage of time without compensation payment in a closed case, and no application for deficiency compensation was made upon reopening. The Special Fund appealed, and the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability ShiftWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aThird-Party SettlementBack InjuryDeficiency CompensationMedical Treatment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2007

Lynch v. Buffalo Bills, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a for a claimant with a permanent partial disability whose case was closed. The self-insured employer requested discharge to the Special Fund after seven years from injury and three years from the last payment. The Board affirmed the transfer of liability and the bifurcation of a new claim for reduced earnings. The Special Fund appealed. The court affirmed the Board's findings regarding the case closure and liability transfer but modified the decision, holding that the claimant's recovery was limited to payments by the Special Fund for the two-year period prior to the application, thus reversing the directive for payments by the self-insured employer.

Reopened CasesSpecial Fund LiabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced Earnings ClaimWorkers' Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of ApplicationEmployer DischargeAppellate ReviewCase Closure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 17,597 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