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

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rita N.

This opinion addresses multiple pending proceedings where petitioners (aunts, uncles, grandparents, natural parents) seek court recognition of existing living arrangements for children for various administrative purposes like school enrollment, social security benefits, or medical authorization. The court observes that these petitioners primarily seek a "piece of paper" (letter of guardianship) to satisfy bureaucratic requirements, even though the children already reside with them. Judge Fogarty explains that the Family Court lacks original jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings, as the Legislature has limited its authority to cases where a child is already under the court's jurisdiction on some other basis. The opinion clarifies that custody proceedings are being used as a "subterfuge" to circumvent this jurisdictional limitation, but such proceedings require an "adversary context" and "justiciable dispute." The court concludes that these matters properly belong in the Surrogate's Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction over infant guardianship and simplified procedures. Therefore, the petitions are dismissed, and the parties are referred to the Surrogate’s Court, as there is no justiciable dispute or custodial controversy before the Family Court.

GuardianshipFamily Court JurisdictionSurrogate's CourtCustody ProceedingsJudicial PowerParens PatriaeInfant WardsJurisdictional LimitationsBest Interest of ChildLetters of Guardianship
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

United States v. Nesbeth

Chevelle Nesbeth was convicted by a jury for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Senior District Judge Block rendered a non-incarceratory sentence of one-year probation, with special conditions including six months' home confinement and 100 hours of community service. The judge wrote this opinion to emphasize the importance of considering the numerous statutory and regulatory collateral consequences facing Nesbeth as a convicted felon, such as restrictions on employment, housing, and voting. These consequences were extensively balanced against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine a just punishment. The opinion advocates for legal counsel and the Probation Department to proactively address collateral consequences in all future pre-sentence reports and sentencing proceedings.

Collateral ConsequencesSentencing ReformCriminal JusticeProbationary SentenceDrug Trafficking OffensesFelony ConvictionJudicial DiscretionFederal Sentencing GuidelinesRehabilitationRecidivism
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pizzo v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Kathleen Pizzo appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's final determination denying her disability insurance benefits. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which had assigned no weight to the treating physician's opinion and significant weight to a consulting physician's report. The court found that the ALJ erred by failing to give appropriate weight to the treating physician's opinion, not adequately developing the administrative record to obtain missing medical notes, and giving undue weight to the consulting physician's report which did not explicitly support the capacity for sedentary work. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the District Court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent of the remand and denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical EvidenceRemandSubstantial EvidenceRecord Development
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Formal Opinion No.

This opinion from the Chairman of the New York Workers' Compensation Board addresses the priority of income execution and income deduction orders, established by the 1985 Support Enforcement Act (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242), against other statutory deductions from workers' compensation awards. Historically, WCL § 33 provided broad exemptions for workers' compensation benefits. However, WCL §§ 206(2) and 25(4)(a) allow for reimbursement of disability insurers and employers for advance payments, respectively, and WCL § 24 establishes liens for attorneys' fees, traditionally enjoying highest priority. The 1985 Act amended WCL § 33 to make benefits subject to support enforcement and also stipulated that income executions and deduction orders take priority over other assignments, levies, or processes. The Board concluded that claims for attorneys' fees and reimbursements by disability insurance carriers and employers are to be deducted first from the workers' compensation award. The support enforcement remedies under CPLR §§ 5241 and 5242 then apply to the balance of the workers' compensation benefits paid to the employee. This approach ensures prompt payment to injured workers and prevents double payment issues.

Workers' CompensationSupport Enforcement ActIncome ExecutionIncome DeductionLien PriorityStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementAttorneys' Fees PriorityCPLR 5241
References
9
Case No. ADJ8700541
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

ZAHRA STEPHENS vs. COX ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's finding of permanent and total disability based on the opinions of a psychologist, Dr. Windman, and a vocational expert, Mr. Wilkinson. The Board found that Dr. Windman's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to inconsistencies, inadequate record review, and conflicts with other medical opinions. Consequently, Mr. Wilkinson's vocational opinion, which relied heavily on Dr. Windman's findings, was also deemed not substantial evidence. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityMedical OpinionVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidencePQMENeurologistPsychologistOrthopedist
References
10
Case No. ADJ1142998 (RDG 0118288)
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

STEVE REYNOLDS vs. WYCKOFF LOGGING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded a finding that avascular necrosis was not a compensable consequence of the applicant's injury, finding the relied-upon medical opinion speculative. The defendant argues the WCJ correctly favored the opinion of Dr. Glancz over Dr. Barber. The WCAB denied reconsideration, reaffirming that Dr. Glancz's opinion was not substantial evidence due to repeated questioning of the injury mechanism, while Dr. Barber's opinion was persuasive and based on a complete history. Therefore, the WCAB maintained its prior decision that Dr. Barber's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the applicant's claim.

Avascular necrosiscompensable consequencesubstantial evidencemedical opinionworkers' compensation administrative law judgereconsiderationfindings and ordermedical treatmentindustrial basissubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tucker

The claimant, a licensed practical nurse concurrently employed at Woodhull Medical Center (part of New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation) and Community Hospital, sustained an injury at Woodhull. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a permanent partial disability and calculated benefits based on combined average weekly wages from both employments, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the City's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, reasoning that the City's liability for lost wages would not have been greater under prior law, as the claimant would have been entitled to the statutory maximum benefit irrespective of concurrent employment. The City appealed, arguing that all benefits received resulted from the increase in average weekly wages due to concurrent employments, thus entitling them to full reimbursement. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's interpretation which aligns with the legislative intent of section 14 (6) to prevent employers from being liable for greater benefits due to the amendment, and to provide compensation for lost wages from full-time employment despite injury in a lower-paying job. The court also noted the Board's role as the drafter and original proponent of the legislation, entitling its interpretation to judicial deference.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageSpecial Disability FundReimbursementStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewJudicial Deference
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State National Organization for Women v. Pataki

This opinion addresses several motions following appeals in a class-action lawsuit challenging practices of the New York State Division of Human Rights. Plaintiffs' motion for curative notice relief is denied, as the Second Circuit had previously deemed similar requests without merit. Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the entire action is denied because the permanent injunction against the 1995 Intake Rules, which were never appealed, remains in effect. Class member Abby Oshinsky's motion for reinstatement of her discrimination claims is denied, as the remaining aspect of the case does not provide a vehicle for her claims, making NYCHA's motion to intervene moot.

Due ProcessClass ActionPermanent InjunctionAdministrative PracticesProcedural DelaysNotice DeficienciesHuman Rights1995 Intake RulesSecond CircuitSupreme Court Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,972 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