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
Sep 08, 1997

Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners v. PMNC

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel in a breach of contract action. The dispute involves Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. (BNYCP) and PMNC, a joint venture, regarding the construction of a cogeneration facility in Brooklyn. BNYCP also sought to enforce a guaranty from The Parsons Corporation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the representation of a separate subsidiary of The Parsons Corporation on unrelated matters would not adversely affect the plaintiffs' counsel's independent judgment or involve conflicting interests.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractAttorney DisqualificationProfessional ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewJoint VentureGuaranty EnforcementLegal EthicsJudicial DecisionAffirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Taitt v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

The claimant, a bus driver residing in the Bronx, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an injury. Her counsel requested a change of venue from Harlem to White Plains, citing the claimant's anxiety due to a prior assault in Harlem and difficulty traveling due to knee and back conditions. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the request, referencing a policy that disallows venue changes for public benefit corporations unless the employer is located in the requested district. The WCLJ also imposed a $750 penalty on claimant's counsel for lacking reasonable grounds. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed both the denial of the venue change and the penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no reasonable basis for the venue change and upholding the penalty, noting counsel's history of similar actions.

Venue ChangePenalty AssessmentWorkers Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewPublic Employer PolicyCounsel SanctionAnxietyTravel DifficultyHarlem District OfficeWhite Plains
References
8
Case No. ADJ10203862
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

Defendant Big 5 Corporation sought removal from a WCJ's order continuing trial to allow the applicant to supplement the medical record. The defendant argued this continuance was due to applicant's counsel's lack of diligence and violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and that the issue of attorney diligence could be addressed during attorney fee determination. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corporation—Delco Products Division v. Rosa

Clifford C. Briggs, an African-American, filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging racial discrimination after being terminated by General Motors Corporation. The Division found probable cause and, after hearings, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended reinstatement with back pay and damages. The Division's Adjudication Counsel proposed dismissing the complaint, but Commissioner Margarita Rosa, who had previously appeared as General Counsel for the Division in the hearings, adopted the ALJ's findings. General Motors challenged this order, arguing a denial of due process due to Commissioner Rosa's dual role and the ALJ exceeding authority. The Appellate Division confirmed the order, applying the Rule of Necessity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Rule of Necessity was not strictly applicable as the Commissioner could have delegated the review to a subordinate. The case is remitted for review by an impartial arbiter.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawRule of NecessityJudicial IndependenceBiasCommissioner DisqualificationGeneral CounselRacial DiscriminationEmployment TerminationDelegation of Authority
References
14
Case No. ADJ2001631
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

SALVADOR AGUAYO, JR. vs. AMERICAN GOLD CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Salvador Aguayo, Jr., and defendant American Gold Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that awarded applicant's counsel $770 for attorney's fees related to discovery necessitated by the defendant's prohibited ex parte communications with medical evaluators. While affirming the fee award, the Board noted that applicant's counsel had previously received an extraordinary 20% fee in a Compromise and Release agreement, which exceeded guideline recommendations. The denial of reconsideration means the $770 award for discovery fees stands, despite the defendant's arguments against it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSalvador AguayoAmerican Gold CorporationArch Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationWCJAttorney's FeesProhibited Ex Parte CommunicationsCompromise and ReleasePolicy and Procedural Manual
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,804 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