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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fontus v. D & J School Bus

Carole Fontus was allegedly injured after being struck by a school bus owned by D & J School Bus and operated by DT Transportation, Inc., with Pasquale Amodei as the driver. Fontus and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants raised a fifth affirmative defense, claiming Fontus and Amodei were coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), thus barring the action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the fifth affirmative defense, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the employment relationship between the parties.

Personal InjurySchool Bus AccidentCo-employmentWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeEmployment RelationshipMotor Vehicle Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Cappellino v. Baumann & Sons Bus Company

John Cappellino, a bus driver for Baumann & Sons Bus Company, died from a fatal heart attack in July 2000. His wife filed a claim for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer failed to file a timely notice of controversy (C-7) as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b), which should have barred them from disputing causation. Despite this, a physician for the employer testified that the death was not work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division relied on this testimony to deny benefits. The court reversed the Appellate Division's order, finding that the employer's physician's testimony should have been precluded due to the untimely filing, and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine causation without considering the employer's improperly admitted evidence.

Workers' CompensationUntimely FilingNotice of ControversyCausal RelationshipPreclusion of EvidenceHeart AttackDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05832
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Markolovic v. MTA Bus Eastchester Depot

Nika Markolovic, a bus driver, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging hearing loss due to prolonged work noise. The self-insured employer argued the claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a point claimant's attorney conceded. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim. Claimant then sought review by the Workers' Compensation Board, contending for the first time that the claim was timely under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb. The Board denied review, citing claimant's failure to interpose a specific objection or exception to the WCLJ's ruling as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to review the WCLJ's decision given claimant's failure to raise the specific argument regarding Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation LawHearing Loss ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdministrative ReviewObjection RequirementWCLJ DecisionAppellate ReviewTimeliness of ClaimNew York RegulationsBoard Review
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02521 [227 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

Dolores v. Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc.

Cleotilde Dolores, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries when her school bus was struck from the rear by another school bus owned by Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc., and driven by Samuel Bercy. She subsequently filed a personal injury action against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the parties shared a special employment relationship with nonparty Logan Bus Payroll Systems, Inc., which would invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and bar the action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to establish the existence of such a special employment relationship.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBus AccidentRear-End CollisionAppellate PracticePrima Facie BurdenKings County
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2006

Rahimi v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

The plaintiff, a bus passenger, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when the bus stopped abruptly to avoid a collision with a car. The defendants, the Transit Authority (including the bus driver) and Con Ed (a utility with parked trucks near the incident), moved for summary judgment, arguing the bus driver acted reasonably in an emergency not of his own making and Con Ed's legally parked vehicles did not cause the incident. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants, concluding the bus driver's actions were reasonable and there was no evidence of illegal parking by Con Ed or causation from their vehicles. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability was denied, and the order was unanimously affirmed.

Personal InjuryBus AccidentSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimEmergency DoctrineAbrupt StopTraffic AccidentAppellate DivisionNew York LawCon Edison
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01869 [181 AD3d 1113]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Perry v. All Am. Sch. Bus Corp.

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Diane Perry, a school bus attendant, sustained multiple injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle while waiting for her assigned bus. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that her injuries arose from an accident in the course of her employment and made awards. The employer and its carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied because they failed to completely answer question 15 on the RB-89 form, which required specifying the objection and when it was interposed, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) and (2) (ii). The Board upheld this denial, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both the Board's decision and amended decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's enforcement of its procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAdministrative ReviewApplication DenialRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeScope of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentInjury CompensationBoard Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Defalco v. Mta Bus Co.

Plaintiffs Anthony Defalco and Eric Trantel sued Detective Brian Longaro, Supervisor Francis Bristow, and MTA Bus Company under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of due process, stemming from their arrest for bus battery theft and subsequent employment suspension. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants. It found Bristow was not acting under color of state law, thus dismissing claims against him. For Longaro, the Court determined there was probable cause for arrest based on Bristow's eyewitness accounts, especially after another suspect confessed, negating the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. Finally, the Court struck the due process claim for insufficient pleading, and alternatively found that even if properly pled, it would fail as prompt post-suspension hearings were offered to plaintiffs, satisfying due process requirements given the governmental interest.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionDue ProcessSummary JudgmentSection 1983State ActionProbable CauseEmployment SuspensionMTA Bus CompanyPolice Misconduct
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 633 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