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
Jun 26, 2013

Claim of Schirizzo v. Citibank NA-Banking

A claimant, a bank teller for 22 years, sustained a work-related back injury in 2009, which prevented her from returning to work. She retired in 2012 and was found to have a 75% permanent impairment. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined her retirement was involuntary and assessed a 99% loss of wage earning capacity. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision, arguing against the findings. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant’s disability caused or contributed to her retirement. Additionally, the court found that the Board properly considered her functional limitations, limited education, age, work experience, and permanent impairment when establishing her loss of wage earning capacity.

Workers' CompensationInvoluntary RetirementLoss of Wage Earning CapacityPermanent ImpairmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical LimitationsVocational FactorsWork-related InjuryBack Injury
References
7
Case No. 12 Civ. 6451(PAC)(SN)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2014

Miller v. Colvin

Plaintiff Terrie A. Miller sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The plaintiff alleged disability due to various impairments including heart problems, depression, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, scoliosis, and asthma. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John P. Costello found that while Plaintiff had several severe impairments, they did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform light work with specific limitations, such as performing simple tasks only, avoiding heavy machinery and respiratory irritants, and working primarily alone. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs like photocopy machine operator or collator operator. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with legal standards, thus denying Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge DecisionResidual Functional CapacityMental Health ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentChronic PainCardiac ArrhythmiaScoliosis
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Schweiker

The plaintiff initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405 to appeal a final decision by the defendant, which had denied his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously concluded in May 1982 that the 62-year-old plaintiff, a longshoreman suffering from chronic bronchitis, emphysema, arthritis, and other severe conditions, was not disabled, deeming his impairments mild and resulting from the aging process. The District Judge found that the ALJ had misapplied 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 by focusing on the plaintiff's ability to perform 'most jobs' rather than assessing whether his impairments significantly limited his ability to perform 'basic work activities,' such as lifting. Medical reports from treating physician Dr. Harold Coppersmith and consulting neurologist Dr. Stephen Gilbert consistently indicated the plaintiff's inability to perform heavy work and, in Dr. Gilbert's opinion, rendered him totally disabled due to conditions like cervical spondylosis, labyrinthine disturbance, and cervical radiculitis. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings within 120 days, instructing the ALJ to properly consider the plaintiff's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience as required by law.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeSevere ImpairmentBasic Work ActivitiesResidual Functional CapacityLongshoremanCervical SpondylosisLabyrinthine DisturbanceVocational Factors
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodale v. Astrue

Plaintiff Rodger Goo-dale applied for supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB), which were denied. He sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, alleging inability to work since October 2005 due to physical impairments. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini reviewed the case, addressing Plaintiff's arguments concerning the ALJ's evaluation of his HIV impairment, residual functional capacity (RFC) determination, credibility assessment, and analysis of his past relevant work. The court found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, upholding the ALJ's findings. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's motion was denied.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security IncomeDisability Insurance BenefitsHIV ImpairmentChronic FatigueResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician RuleCredibility Assessment
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Michele Laverne Brooks sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability benefits claim under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings. Brooks alleged disability due to various conditions including high blood pressure, Hepatitis C, arthritis, diabetes, renal disease, and scoliosis, which she claimed severely limited her ability to work. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her claim, finding that while she had severe impairments, they did not meet a listed impairment, and she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. The ALJ gave limited weight to Brooks's testimony, citing inconsistencies with medical records and her prior claims for unemployment benefits. The Magistrate Judge granted the Commissioner's motion, affirming the ALJ's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and based on correct legal standards, particularly regarding the evaluation of Brooks's credibility and the medical opinions.

Social Security DisabilityJudicial ReviewBenefits DenialAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingsResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical OpinionsTreating Physician RuleConsultative Examination
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Apfel

The plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, alleging disability since August 1993 due to bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and phobias. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the claim, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The plaintiff subsequently brought this matter to the District Court, contending that the ALJ misapplied legal standards by failing to properly weigh his treating physician's opinion, incorrectly concluding his impairments did not meet a listed impairment, and inadequately describing his work capabilities. The court found that the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standard to the treating physician's opinion and improperly discredited the plaintiff's subjective complaints by mischaracterizing evidence in the record. As a result, the court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case, ordering reconsideration of the treating physician's opinion, the plaintiff's functional limitations, and further development of the record concerning the plaintiff's residual functional capacity.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSSISSDIBipolar DisorderADHDPhobiasTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemand
References
24
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
Nov 14, 1978

Claim of Spasiano v. Empire City Iron Works

The claimant, a mechanic hired in 1974, suffered a low back injury at work in November 1974. He had a pre-existing medical condition, having undergone subtotal gastrectomy in 1965. The employer's insurance carrier filed a C-250 seeking reimbursement from the Special Fund, alleging a pre-existing permanent physical impairment. To claim reimbursement, it needed to be established that the employer hired or continued the claimant with knowledge of the impairment and a good faith belief in its permanency, and that the impairment materially and substantially increased the disability. Conflicting medical opinions were presented regarding whether the claimant's prior stomach condition materially and substantially increased his disability. The Workers' Compensation Board found, based on medical evidence including Dr. Lehv's report, that the prior stomach condition did not materially and substantially increase the disability. This finding, supported by substantial evidence, led to the affirmation of the Board's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardSpecial Fund LiabilityPre-existing ConditionSubtotal GastrectomyLow Back InjuryMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical EvidenceReimbursementEmployabilityPermanency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guttierez v. Berryhill

Betsy Lee Guttierez applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability due to various mental health impairments. Her applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council. Guttierez sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly assess her residual functional capacity (RFC) by rejecting the only medical opinion on her mental ability to work without providing adequate reasons or a function-by-function analysis. The Court agreed, finding the ALJ's RFC assessment unsupported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ, a non-medical professional, made a determination of Guttierez's mental capacity without relying on a medical opinion. Consequently, the Court granted Guttierez's motion, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSSIALJ Decision ReviewRFC AssessmentMedical EvidenceMental Health ImpairmentsBipolar DisorderAnxiety DisorderTreating Physician Rule
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,545 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