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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 189 AD3d 1225
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2020

Matter of Georgia Asciutto v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Georgia Asciutto sought to annul a determination by the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) and its Board of Trustees, which offset her workers' compensation death benefit against an accidental death benefit (ADB) she was awarded. Her decedent, a former executive director, died from illnesses related to his exposure to toxins during the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks. NYCERS approved her application for ADB but then reduced the award by the amount of her workers' compensation death benefits, citing Administrative Code §§ 13-149 and 13-176. The Supreme Court denied Asciutto's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision which the Appellate Division affirmed. The Appellate Division found NYCERS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious, as Administrative Code § 13-176 (b) aims to prevent double awards for the same accidental cause of death, a principle supported by prior case law.

Accidental Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation OffsetNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemCPLR Article 78World Trade Center ResponderDeath BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative CodeDouble RecoveryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ohriner v. Jamaice Wet Wash Laundry Co.

The Employer and Carrier appealed a posthumous award for disability and death benefits, granted from June 20, 1952, until the employee's death on February 27, 1953. The accident itself was not disputed, but its causal relation to the employee's death was questioned. The employee slipped at work, was caught by his knees over a shift lever, and remained suspended upside down. He immediately felt pain. Initially diagnosed as a ruptured vertebral disc, it was later determined he suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Medical opinion, based on his prior good health and immediate illness after the accident, concluded that the accident aggravated the pre-existing disease and contributed to his death. The award was affirmed with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

posthumous awarddisability benefitsdeath benefitscausationaggravation of pre-existing conditionamyotrophic lateral sclerosiswork accidentspinal cord injurynervous system diseasemedical opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1984

Krebbeks v. Regan

Petitioner, the widow of a Department of Transportation employee, applied for accidental death benefits after her husband's service-connected death in July 1981. Although her application for accidental death benefits was approved, these benefits were entirely offset by workers' compensation payments, leaving her with no current payments from the State Employees’ Retirement System. Subsequently, petitioner sought a lump-sum ordinary death benefit, which was denied because she was deemed eligible for accidental death benefits, even if offset. This appeal ensued after the denial of her application by a hearing officer and Special Term's concurrence. The court affirmed the denial, citing Retirement and Social Security Law § 60 (a) (3), which states an ordinary death benefit is not payable if an accidental death benefit is payable, with a narrow exception not applicable here.

Accidental Death BenefitsOrdinary Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation OffsetRetirement and Social Security LawStatutory InterpretationDeath Benefits EligibilityPublic Employee BenefitsAdministrative Law AppealDeath Benefit Offset
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Picinich v. Cayuga Crimmins

The case involves an appeal from decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which awarded death benefits to the widow and three minor children of a deceased employee. The employee, a construction worker, was found dead by electrocution at his New York City work site shortly after his midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift ended. A referee and the board determined his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. Appellants contended the death did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The court disagreed, finding substantial evidence that the death occurred in the course of employment, triggering a presumption under Workmen's Compensation Law § 21 that it also arose out of employment. Evidence suggesting a personal pursuit was deemed speculative and insufficient to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the board’s determination was affirmed.

Electrocution DeathWork-related AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionDeath BenefitsWidow and Minor ChildrenAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSalvaging Cable
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Limpert v. Kay-R Electric

Claimant, the widow of a deceased pilot, sought workers' compensation death benefits after her husband died in an airplane crash while flying passengers for Kay-R Electric. She contended that her husband was an employee of Kay-R Electric at the time of his death. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, finding no employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between the decedent and Kay-R Electric. The court noted the decedent's role as president and sole shareholder of Fair Aviation, Inc., and testimony suggesting the flight was a favor, not employment.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipDeath BenefitsAirplane CrashPilotIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew York LawKay-R Electric
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ9100288
Regular
May 17, 2018

GILBERT CORTEZ (Deceased), NOHEMA CORTEZ (Surviving Spouse & Guardian Ad Litem), et al. vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Claims Administrator)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision concerning death benefits for the deceased employee's children, Andres and Marisa Cortez. The WCAB remanded the case to the administrative law judge to properly join the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and determine the entitlement to and coordination of workers' compensation death benefits with CalPERS special death benefits. The WCAB clarified that the "good cause" standard under *Antrim* applies and that CalPERS benefits may offset workers' compensation benefits to avoid duplicate payments. Further proceedings are required to consider the specific claims of dependency and the impact of CalPERS payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCDCRSCIFCalPERSdeath benefitsdependent childrenspecial death benefitsoffsetAntrim standardLabor Code section 4707
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,217 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