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

Claim of Winber v. Gottlieb Adorn Printing Co.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workmen's Compensation Board denying compensation benefits. The claimant, a compositor, sustained a lower back injury in November 1958. The core issue was whether a subsequent reduction in earnings in January 1960 was due to the disability or the employer’s economic condition. The employer argued that poor business conditions and the loss of a major contract necessitated the pay reduction. The claimant countered that he was the only employee whose pay was reduced and that two office workers received increases. The board found that the reduction in earnings was due to economic conditions, not the disability. The court affirmed the board's determination, stating it was based on substantial evidence and not reviewable.

workers' compensationreduced earningseconomic conditionsdisabilitycausationsubstantial evidenceappealcompositorlower back injuryemployer responsibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leeber v. LILCO

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant exposed to asbestos during employment with LILCO and its successor, resulting in occupational asbestosis and pleural disease. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant permanently partially disabled and that his retirement, though incentivized, was partly due to his disability, thus not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Board affirmed the disability finding but denied continued compensation after the claimant testified he had not sought post-retirement work. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred by discontinuing awards solely based on the claimant's failure to seek employment post-retirement, as proof that a claimant has not sought work does not, by itself, defeat the inference that reduced earning capacity is due to disability. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's three-step analysis for evaluating voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Occupational AsbestosisPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation AppealAppellate ReversalRemittalBurden of ProofDisability RetirementPost-Retirement Employment
References
4
Case No. ADJ8300983
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

ALBERTO CHICO vs. ONEMOR, INC., dba McDONALD'S, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration for the Jacobs-represented lien claimants, upholding the disallowance of their liens due to a failure to prove industrial injury and insufficient evidence. However, the Board granted reconsideration for the Kauffman-represented lien claimants, rescinding the sanctions previously imposed. While agreeing that the Kauffman claimants also failed to prove injury, the Board found their conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous tactics required for sanctions.

WCABlien claimantspetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderOrder Overruling Objection and Imposing Sanctionsindustrial injuryprobative evidencesanctionsbad-faith actionsfrivolous
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Santana

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the claimant, after an argument over radio volume, threatened a co-worker with an object appearing to be a knife, leading to his discharge. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that the claimant lost his job due to disqualifying misconduct. The court also determined there was no error in allowing the co-worker to testify via telephone, noting the claimant did not object and had the opportunity to cross-examine. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductThreatening BehaviorWorkplace DisputeCredibility IssueTelephone TestimonyAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardDisqualification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Harvey

The claimant, a computer project specialist, was terminated from employment after repeatedly offending a co-worker by admonishing him about his personal life due to the claimant's religious beliefs. This occurred despite previous counseling from the employer to cease espousing religious beliefs in the workplace following complaints from numerous co-workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct, finding that he knew or should have known that his actions could lead to termination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate the claimant’s right to free speech.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductReligious BeliefsWorkplace ConductFree SpeechEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCounselingCo-worker Complaints
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Denman v. Cobbler's Restaurant

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2003, leading to workers' compensation benefits. In July 2011, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the claimant had misrepresented her disabilities to influence benefit determinations, despite being totally disabled. This finding was based on hearing testimony and surveillance videos. Consequently, the WCLJ imposed a discretionary penalty, reducing her weekly benefits for one year. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s determination, concluding that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence derived from the claimant's testimony and the surveillance videos.

Misrepresentation of DisabilitySurveillance Video EvidenceDiscretionary PenaltyBenefit ReductionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityIndependent Medical ExaminationTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hunter v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation worker, sustained a work-related back injury in 1996 and other injuries to his knees, foot, and shoulder over time. In 2010, after 32 years of service, the claimant retired, citing his various work-related injuries, and sought post-retirement benefits for the 1996 back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the claimant's retirement constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and was unrelated to the 1996 injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record, including the claimant's own testimony and medical reports, that the 1996 injury was responsible for only a mild or moderate disability and that his retirement was prompted by knee problems rather than the back injury.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBack InjuryKnee InjuryPost-Retirement BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCausationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1993

Claim of Dukes v. Capitol Formation, Inc.

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident in 1971 while on a business trip, resulting in a compensable injury. Over the next two decades, numerous hearings were held regarding medical bill payments and related compensation issues. The parties eventually entered into a stipulated settlement, which included a $75,000 lump-sum payment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-b). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claimant’s request to set aside this stipulation, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied by the Board. The appeals court dismissed the appeal of the Board’s June 7, 1993 decision as untimely, and affirmed the Board’s August 19, 1993 decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationStipulated SettlementLump-Sum SettlementReconsiderationUntimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudCollusionMistakeTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garifo v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related lower back injury in November 2001, receiving benefits until March 2002. In January 2006, claimant sought to reopen his case due to worsening condition. A WCLJ initially found a causally-related partial disability and later ruled claimant was relieved of work obligations due to Social Security disability benefits, awarding workers' compensation benefits. The employer appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, determining that claimant’s loss of earnings and cessation of employment were unrelated to his compensable partial disability and that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Voluntary withdrawal from labor marketWorkers' Compensation benefitsPartial disabilitySocial Security disability benefitsCausally-related disabilityBurden of proofSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewLoss of earningsCessation of employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,786 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