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

Central New York Workers' Compensation Bar Ass'n v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners challenged the State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board’s policy that permitted the State Insurance Fund to install computer hardware in the Board’s Syracuse office, granting wireless Internet access to the Fund’s attorneys during proceedings, while denying the same to other attorneys. The Supreme Court found this policy to be arbitrary and capricious. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Board’s policy provided an unfair competitive advantage to the State Insurance Fund, which, despite its state agency status, functions as an insurer in proceedings before the Board. This disparate treatment in litigation access was deemed arbitrary and capricious.

Wireless Access PolicyArbitrary & CapriciousCompetitive AdvantageState AgencyInsurance FundEqual TreatmentLitigation AccessAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureOnondaga County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Benware v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a self-insured employer was responsible for $300 in attorney expenses for a claimant's injury sustained in an automobile accident. The employer contested a $150 reimbursement portion, arguing it was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, as the attorney conceded only one trip to Albany was made, not two, and there was no proof the $150 expense for local counsel was incurred. The court agreed, finding the board's determination regarding the $150 for securing local counsel unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Attorney FeesExpense ReimbursementTravel ExpensesAdministrative Law Judge DecisionsAppellate Court ReviewEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious RulingCase RemittalWorkers' Compensation ClaimsLegal Representation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision by the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of New York to install a bike share station in Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park. They contended that the installation violated the public trust doctrine and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court determined that while the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, the bike share station serves a proper park purpose. Furthermore, the court found that the respondents' decision to site the station was rational, based on technical considerations and public input, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied and dismissed in its entirety.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland UseBike Share StationsArticle 78 PetitionAdministrative ReviewMunicipal PlanningUrban DevelopmentNew York LawEnvironmental PolicyCommunity Engagement
References
15
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00065 [179 AD3d 426]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Mooney v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment denying a petition to vacate a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB determination, dated February 21, 2018, had dismissed petitioner Burke's improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Transport Workers Union Local 100 (TWU). The court found PERB's determination was not arbitrary and capricious or legally impermissible, as Burke failed to allege facts showing TWU engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct regarding his grievances. Consequently, Burke was precluded from litigating directly against NYCTA for a breach of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1).

Improper Practice ChargeDuty of Fair RepresentationPERB DeterminationCPLR Article 78Collective BargainingGrievance ProcessUnion RepresentationPublic EmploymentAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miele v. Town of Clarkstown

A police officer, after an initial back injury in 1998 for which he received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, later ceased working again in 2000 due to continued back pain. The Chief of Police of the Town of Clarkstown denied his request for GML § 207-c benefits for this subsequent absence, determining it was unrelated to the original injury based on a doctor's report. The officer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious and seeking to compel the Town to award benefits. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Chief of Police's determination had a rational basis in the record, thus not arbitrary and capricious.

Workers' CompensationPolice OfficerLine of Duty InjuryBenefits DenialCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousRational BasisAppellate ReviewBack InjuryGeneral Municipal Law 207-c
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metz v. County of Suffolk

Petitioner Metz challenged the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR)'s determination of no probable cause regarding her disability discrimination complaint against the County of Suffolk, Department of Labor. Metz, a clerk/typist, alleged the County failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a worksite that worsened her medical condition, despite other alleged available positions. She contended that the NYSDHR's dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, partly due to insufficient time to present evidence. The court, applying the 'arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis' standard, found that Metz did not meet her burden. The court concluded that her claim was about commute length, not essential job functions, and lacked verified evidence, ultimately denying her application.

Disability discriminationReasonable accommodationHuman rights lawProbable causeAdministrative reviewArbitrary and capriciousSuffolk CountyClerk/typistEmployment lawWorksite transfer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terito v. John S. Swift Co.

Dominick A. Terito, a former employee of John S. Swift Co., Inc., sought a declaratory judgment regarding his pension rights after his employment was terminated. The company's retirement committee forfeited his benefits, citing "wilful misconduct financially injurious to the Company" for leaving work early due to a son's medical emergency. Terito contended this forfeiture was arbitrary and capricious, especially given the company's inconsistent enforcement of rules and his 35 years of service. The court found no demonstrable financial injury to the corporation and concluded that the committee's determination was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The plaintiff was granted a vested interest in the pension plan, but his claim for immediate damages was dismissed as he had not yet reached the age of eligibility for benefits.

Pension RightsEmployee TerminationWillful MisconductForfeiture of BenefitsArbitrary and CapriciousERISA ApplicabilityCompany Pension PlanEmployment LawDeclaratory ReliefAbuse of Discretion
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maida v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

Plaintiff Anthony Maida sued Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) after his long-term disability benefits were terminated. Maida initially claimed physical disability due to a fall and later asserted mental disability from post-traumatic stress disorder. The court granted LINA's motion for summary judgment on the physical disability claim, finding LINA's denial was not arbitrary and capricious based on multiple medical reports. Additionally, LINA was awarded $10,155 on its counterclaim for overpaid benefits. However, the court vacated LINA's rejection of the mental disability claim, deeming it arbitrary and capricious due to the lack of proper medical review, and remanded the matter to LINA for reconsideration, while retaining jurisdiction.

Disability BenefitsERISA LitigationSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious ReviewRemand to AdministratorPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPhysical Injury ClaimMental Health ClaimInsurance Policy DisputeOverpayment Reimbursement
References
19
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01967 [159 AD3d 1234]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Brasher v. Sam Dell's Dodge Corp.

David Brian Brasher appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Board had previously affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that Brasher had a 75% permanent partial disability but suspended awards due to his lack of attachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division's review was confined to whether the Board's denial of reconsideration was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The claimant failed to present newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or demonstrate that the Board overlooked issues in its initial determination. The court found no arbitrary or capricious action, noting the claimant's argument for total disability contradicted his own physicians' findings of a 75% permanent partial disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaimant Appeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 411 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