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 McCaffrey v. James L. Lewis, Inc.

A pipe-fitter, diagnosed with asbestosis and pleural placquing, ceased work in 1988. Initially found disabled by a WCLJ, the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed this, ruling his pleural placquing was not disabling. The claimant appealed, asserting the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence, that he was legally disabled under Workers’ Compensation Law § 37 (1), and that the decision undermined the law's humanitarian intent. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, citing substantial medical evidence indicating the claimant's condition was not disabling and that he could still perform pipe-fitting work under appropriate conditions.

asbestosispleural placquingoccupational diseasedisability claimmedical expert testimonysubstantial evidence reviewappellate reviewpulmonary conditionspipe-fitting professioncausation of disability
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08599
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Matter of Kearns v. Decisions Strategies Envt.

Peter Kearns, an ironworker, sought workers' compensation benefits for illnesses allegedly caused by toxic exposure while monitoring trucks at the World Trade Center site post-9/11. He filed a claim and registered his participation under Workers' Compensation Law § 162. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established his claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, deeming the claim untimely and his truck-monitoring activities not qualifying as "rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations" under WCL § 161(1). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Kearns' duties were akin to routine security work and lacked a direct or tangible connection to the specified operations, thus denying coverage under WCL article 8-A.

Workers' Compensation LawWorld Trade Center Operations9/11 Related IllnessScope of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOccupational DiseaseTimeliness of ClaimRescue, Recovery, Cleanup Operations
References
4
Case No. Appellate Division Docket No. 2022-000000
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2023

Matter of Howard v. Facilities Maintenance Corporation

Shamira Bell appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision regarding reimbursement for lost wage payments from the Special Disability Fund. The WCB had determined that the employer's application for reimbursement was untimely, filed more than two years after the final decision that the case was subject to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, rejecting Bell's argument that the two-year period for filing a claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) should commence only after a final administrative award determined the total reimbursement amount. The court clarified that the two-year period begins upon the Board's final determination that the case falls under the specified section of the Workers' Compensation Law. In this instance, the Board's August 2019 decision established this final determination, rendering the employer's July 2022 reimbursement application untimely.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimTimeliness of ApplicationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSection 15 (8) (d)Final DeterminationLost Wage PaymentsStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nalews, Inc. v. New York State Environmental Facilities Corp.

The petitioner, Schultz Construction Inc., entered into a contract with the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) subject to Labor Law section 220, mandating prevailing wages. The Department of Labor's redeterminations led EFC to withhold funds from the petitioner. Despite the annulment of these redeterminations due to a lack of hearings, funds remained withheld. Petitioner sought a return of the moneys, which Special Term granted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that while the fiscal officer was not expeditious, the statutory provisions for withholding funds to ensure prevailing wages override the delay. The court found that Special Term erred in directing the funds to be paid, and the appropriate remedy was a hearing, which has since occurred. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing WageWithholding FundsLabor LawAdministrative HearingCPLR Article 78Expeditious InvestigationFiscal OfficerPublic WorkWage RedeterminationsNew York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samba v. Delligard

This case involves a negligence action for wrongful death and personal injuries initially filed against defendant Nice Jewish Boy, Inc. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on the defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court subsequently reversed the order, thereby granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212. The basis for this reversal was a prior Workers’ Compensation Board determination that the decedents' deaths stemmed from injuries sustained during their employment, a finding deemed binding due to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and principles of res judicata. The court affirmed that such a binding administrative decision or the receipt of workers' compensation benefits provides sufficient grounds to dismiss the negligence action.

NegligenceWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationRes JudicataAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissEmployment-Related InjuryCompensable InjuryBinding Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. ADJ3445477 (RDG 0108598)
Regular
Apr 21, 2011

DENNIS NEWELL (Deceased) DEBORAH NEWELL (Widow) vs. FORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a widow's claim for death benefits due to an alleged Serious and Willful Misconduct by the employer, Ford Construction Company. The Appeals Board previously rescinded a decision finding such misconduct. The applicant now seeks reconsideration, arguing the Board's prior decision was inconsistent with an appellate court ruling concerning specific OSHA Safety Orders. The Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the applicant waived the issue of Safety Order 4999(b)(1) and that, despite the appellate court's mention of Safety Order 5042(a)(6) without a specific finding, the overall appellate decision negated the Serious and Willful claim. Therefore, the Board affirmed its prior decision and amended a finding to explicitly state no violation of Safety Order 5042 occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code 4553Labor Code 4553.1Safety Order 5002Safety Order 4999(b)(1)Safety Order 5042(a)(6)RemittiturFindings and AwardRes Judicata
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ford v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a public relations director, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 1994 due to work-related posttraumatic stress disorder, but later withdrew the claim in March 1997 due to a parallel federal civil rights action, leading to its closure without a decision on merits. In March 2003, claimant sought to reopen the case, which the Workers' Compensation Board denied in February 2004, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 123 as a bar. The Board subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review in July 2004, prompting the claimant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no new evidence was presented for reconsideration and that the Board had properly determined the claim was truly closed and time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as over seven years had lapsed since the accident. Consequently, the appellate decision concluded that the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialTime-Barred ClaimPosttraumatic Stress DisorderFederal Civil Rights ActionJurisdictionReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Franz v. Comet Construction Corp.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who suffered a left leg injury in 1962, leading to amputation in 1963. Subsequently, the claimant developed depression and psychotic episodes requiring ongoing psychiatric treatment. The Board initially made an award in 1964 and authorized further psychiatric care. The case was reopened in 1967 to determine the causal relationship between the accident and the claimant's mental condition. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in 1972 that periods of hospitalization were causally related. Following additional hospitalizations, the case was reopened in 1979, where the appellants raised issues of apportionment and the standing of the Office of Mental Health of the State of New York. The ALJ affirmed the Office of Mental Health's standing and directed reimbursement, also ordering a trial on apportionment. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that the mental illness was precipitated by the injury, the 1972 decision was res judicata on causal relationship, and the Office of Mental Health was an interested party. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the appellants' arguments regarding the Office of Mental Health's standing and their contention about the lack of medical evidence for the causal relationship of later hospitalizations, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

AmputationPsychiatric InjuryCausal RelationshipRes JudicataStandingApportionmentMedical ExpensesSchedule LossMental HealthBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 1977

Claim of McIntyre v. Ritchie Bros.

This case involves appeals against a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, an amended decision from September 6, 1977, and a second amended decision from December 30, 1977. The board modified a referee’s decision, determining that Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, the carrier on the risk on March 25, 1975, was liable for the date of disability. The appellate court found substantial evidence to uphold the board's decision. Consequently, the decision was affirmed, and costs were awarded to respondent Home Indemnity Company against the appellants, Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company.

Workers' CompensationAppealsInsurance CarrierLiabilityDate of DisabilityAffirmed DecisionCosts AwardedSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionAmended Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 26,921 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