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

Lawson v. Barden (In Re Skalski)

This adversary proceeding, initiated by a Chapter 7 Trustee, involved the Debtor, Theresa H. Skalski, who transferred her home in Depew, New York, to her daughter, Christine A. Barden, and son-in-law in 1995. The Debtor took a $35,000 note for the property, which she later forgave. The Trustee sought to void this transfer under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, arguing it was a fraudulent transfer made without fair consideration while the Debtor was insolvent. The Defendants contended that the loan forgiveness constituted consideration for a promise of future support, and they claimed offsets for support provided and property maintenance. The court, citing precedent like Kotowski, ruled that a promise of future support is not fair consideration and rejected the Defendants' claims for offsets related to property maintenance, as they owned the property and collected rent from the Debtor. Finding the Debtor insolvent at the time of the transfer and the absence of fair consideration, the court granted summary judgment to the Trustee for $35,000 plus costs.

Fraudulent TransferBankruptcyInsolvencyFair ConsiderationFuture Support PromiseSummary JudgmentDebtor-Creditor LawU.S. Bankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFamily Transfers
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03444
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2020

Schoch v. Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C.

Kim E. Schoch, a certified nurse midwife, was employed by Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. and covered by a professional liability insurance policy from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC), with the employer paying all premiums. Following MLMIC's conversion to a stock insurance company, a cash consideration was to be distributed to eligible policyholders. Schoch, as the named insured, was deemed the policyholder, but Lake Champlain OB-GYN objected, claiming entitlement due to its premium payments, a claim upheld by the Supreme Court based on unjust enrichment. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Schoch, as the policyholder, was legally entitled to the consideration per statute and MLMIC's conversion plan. The court found that the demutualization proceeds were an unexpected windfall not explicitly covered by the employment agreement, and that Lake Champlain OB-GYN's unjust enrichment claim failed because Schoch's entitlement was based on law, not mistake or fraudulent conduct. Consequently, Schoch was declared solely entitled to the $74,747.03 cash consideration.

DemutualizationInsurance PolicyPolicyholder RightsUnjust EnrichmentProfessional LiabilityEmployment BenefitsAppellate DivisionContractual InterpretationCash ConsiderationMutual to Stock Conversion
References
16
Case No. 534802
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars sustained a right knee injury in January 2017, leading to a workers' compensation claim where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 66.67% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) reduced the SLU to 20%, asserting that the physicians' opinions were inconsistent with impairment guidelines and based on inapplicable special considerations. On appeal, the Appellate Division found the Board's decision could not be sustained because its assessment of the medical evidence, specifically concerning Dr. Thomas DiBenedetto's independent medical examination (IME) report, was inaccurate. The Board erroneously claimed DiBenedetto found 110 degrees of flexion and applied special considerations, whereas his report documented 90 degrees of flexion and no such considerations. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing the Board to accurately re-assess the medical evidence and determine anew the claim's amenability to classification or SLU, and the resulting degree of disability.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalImpairment GuidelinesConflicting Medical OpinionsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Factual Questions
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1979

Claim of Kirchner v. Park Edge Supermarkets, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant who injured his right hand in 1977 at age 18. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially established the average weekly wage (AWW) at $108.75. A subsequent ALJ, after a statutory amendment in August 1978 allowed consideration of wage expectancy for claimants under 25, recomputed the AWW to $160 and directed a schedule award for permanent partial disability. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing against the consideration of wage expectancy. The Board affirmed the decision, ruling that the amended statute applied to awards made on or after its effective date, validating the ALJ's recomputation of the AWW based on wage expectancy.

Wage ExpectancyPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageStatutory AmendmentWorkers' Compensation LawSchedule AwardInjured WorkerAppellate ReviewBoard AffirmanceStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finley v. Manhattan Developmental Center

The petitioner, a mental hygiene therapy aide, was dismissed for failing to report client abuse. An arbitrator found the charges proven and upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court vacated the dismissal portion of the arbitration award, deeming the punishment disproportionate and remanding the issue of punishment to the arbitrator for further consideration, without adequately considering the arbitrator's reasoning process. This appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, confirming the original arbitration award and denying the petition to vacate. The court stated that the arbitrator's omission to discuss the petitioner's employment history did not render the decision defective, as there was no evidence that any factors were overlooked that the petitioner had an opportunity to advance. Furthermore, CPLR 7511 (b) does not provide grounds to vacate an arbitration award for the consideration of factors thought to be overlooked.

ArbitrationDismissalEmploymentClient AbuseCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewDue ProcessPunishmentArbitrator Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colello v. Colello

Plaintiff initiated a divorce action, challenging a 1990 property distribution agreement as void due to alleged lack of consideration, breach of fiduciary duty, and absence of a meeting of the minds. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, voiding the agreement, and denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion, leading to the dismissal of the second through seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the validity of the agreement, finding sufficient consideration in mutual promises and rejecting claims of duress and fraud. It also determined that there was a meeting of the minds and that the agreement was not facially unconscionable, distinguishing between the agreement's initial validity and potential issues related to its subsequent performance or application.

Divorce LawPrenuptial AgreementPostnuptial AgreementSummary JudgmentContract ValidityConsideration (Contract Law)Fiduciary DutyDuressFraud in the InducementMeeting of the Minds
References
20
Case No. CV-24-2052
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

Claimant John Maini appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left foot, resulting from a ruptured Achilles tendon suffered in June 2022. The Board had modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 40% SLU. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board properly credited the opinion of the employer's consultant, whose interpretation of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically special consideration 6 regarding Achilles tendon ruptures, was consistent with the plain language of the guidelines and prior case law. The Court emphasized that range of motion deficits solely attributable to the Achilles tendon rupture could not be added to the SLU value assigned under special consideration 6, thereby supporting the 22.5% award.

schedule loss of useAchilles tendon ruptureworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionsubstantial evidencemaximum medical improvementrange of motionappellate revieworthopedic surgeonpermanent impairment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartog v. Hartog

This equitable distribution case concerns the appeal of a wife from an Appellate Division order modifying a Supreme Court judgment on divorce and property distribution after a 23-year marriage. Key issues include whether the appreciation of the husband's separate property businesses and his bonus constituted marital property, the court's authority to order life insurance or liens for maintenance, and the appropriate duration of maintenance. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Supreme Court's finding that a proportionate share of the businesses' appreciation and the husband's bonus were marital property, criticizing the Appellate Division's 'exacting causation prerequisite.' It also reinstated lifetime maintenance for the wife, emphasizing the mandatory consideration of the predivorce standard of living. However, the Court agreed with the Appellate Division that ordering life insurance or estate liens was inappropriate given the husband's uninsurability and lack of inherent judicial authority for liens, and upheld the consideration of tax consequences in the distributive award. The final decision modifies the Appellate Division's order and, as modified, affirms it.

Equitable distributionMarital propertySeparate property appreciationSpousal maintenanceLifetime maintenanceLife insuranceEstate lienDivorceAppellate reviewActive involvement
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 345 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