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

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
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Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits.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
Jan 09, 1998

Claim of Griffin v. Syracuse Rigging Co.

Claimant sustained compensable back injuries in 1987 and 1988 but continued working until a layoff in November 1994. He received unemployment benefits and then retired in May 1995, accepting a union pension and Social Security disability. His subsequent claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied due to voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, both for declining job offers between November 1994 and May 1995 and for retiring thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, which found voluntary withdrawal based on claimant's refusal of employment offers, lack of job search post-retirement, personal reasons for retirement, and physical capability for work, was affirmed. The Appellate Division found the Board's resolution to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketUnemployment BenefitsDisability PensionRetirementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryDeclined Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Crosby v. SCM Corp.

Claimant, employed by SCM Corporation for 19 years, injured her back in April 1979, leading to sacroileitis and severe back pain. She was awarded workers' compensation benefits at a reduced earnings rate. In 1980, SCM offered her a modified assembly line job, designed to accommodate her physical limitations. However, claimant declined the job, citing continued severe back pain and the impracticality of performing the work given her need for frequent exercises and potential muscle spasms. SCM argued that her refusal constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, seeking to deny further benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that she did not voluntarily withdraw, a decision upheld by the appellate court due to substantial evidence supporting claimant's inability to perform the offered job.

Workers' Compensation AppealVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketSacroileitisModified Duty OfferPhysical ImpairmentSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate ReviewCausally Related InjuryAssembly Line WorkBenefit Denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Burke

Defendant John Burke moved to dismiss an indictment accusing him of violating Election Law § 448, which prohibits the corrupt use of position or authority to procure a nomination. The indictment alleged Burke offered to secure the withdrawal of a primary candidate, James Eagan, to ensure an uncontested nomination for James Delaney, in exchange for mortgage financing for the Windsor Hotel. The defense argued that merely causing a candidate's withdrawal does not equate to 'procuring' or 'causing' a nomination under the statute, citing the possibility of other candidates. The District Attorney's analogy to bribery cases, where the crime is complete regardless of the official's actual authority, was rejected by the court. The court clarified that Election Law § 448 targets corrupt bargains by political 'bosses' to control nominations, not merely influencing a primary election outcome by a candidate's withdrawal. The court also noted that while the alleged conduct might violate Election Law § 421(5) (misdemeanor for acts affecting election results), it does not fall under § 448. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was granted.

Election LawCorrupt use of positionIndictment dismissalPrimary electionCandidate withdrawalBribery analogyStatutory interpretationLegislative intentPenal LawCampaign finance
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,361 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