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

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. New York State & Local Employees Retirement System

Petitioner, a registered nurse, sought ordinary and accidental disability retirement benefits after inhaling noxious fumes at Rome City Hospital. His ordinary disability application was denied as untimely, filed beyond the 90-day post-termination period. The accidental disability claim was also rejected because his prolonged exposure to fumes was not considered a 'sudden, fortuitous mischance' or an accidental injury under Retirement and Social Security Law § 63. The court upheld the respondent's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that no accident occurred. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementAccidental InjuryTimely FilingCPLR Article 78Noxious FumesOrdinary DisabilityRetirement and Social Security LawRegistered NurseRome City HospitalAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement System

Petitioner, a maintenance worker at Carthage Central School District, was injured after a ladder slid off an elevator roof while he was repairing masonry. He applied for disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law article 15, which was initially granted by a Hearing Officer but later denied by the Comptroller. The core issue revolves around whether the incident constituted an 'accident' for disability purposes. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated to review the Comptroller's determination. The court found that the slipping of the ladder or plywood was a sudden and unexpected event, constituting an accident as a matter of law. Therefore, the court annulled the Comptroller's determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental InjuryLadder FallElevator ShaftMaintenance WorkerComptroller Decision ReviewCPLR Article 78 ProceedingWorkplace AccidentRetirement and Social Security LawJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parish v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a correction officer, was injured in April 1999 and May 2004, leading to her being placed on leave without pay. She applied for disability retirement benefits and performance of duty disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied. The Hearing Officer found the disability retirement application untimely and that the injury was not a result of a direct act of an inmate for performance of duty benefits. The Respondent adopted these findings, leading to this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, dismissing the petition, finding the application for disability benefits untimely and agreeing that a floor waxing by an inmate does not constitute an 'act of an inmate' for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty DisabilityCorrection OfficerTimeliness of ApplicationAct of an InmateWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Leave of AbsenceCPLR Article 78New York LawPublic Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Truly v. Regan

Petitioner, employed by Brooklyn Developmental Center, sustained a lower back and left leg injury in January 1986. After a period of inactivity, she stopped working in March 1987 due to her injuries and began receiving workers' compensation benefits. In February 1988, her applications for ordinary disability retirement benefits (under Retirement and Social Security Law art 14) and article 15 disability retirement benefits (under art 15) were denied by the respondent. The ordinary disability application was denied because she was not 'in service' at the time of filing, having been terminated in May 1987. The article 15 disability application was deemed untimely, as it was filed in February 1988, beyond the three-month window from her last payroll date of March 27, 1987, and she lacked approved medical leave. The court confirmed the denial and dismissed her petition.

Disability RetirementOrdinary Disability BenefitsArticle 15 Disability BenefitsIn Service RequirementTimely FilingCPLR Article 78 ProceedingEmployment TerminationMedical LeaveNew York State Employees' Retirement SystemAlbany County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lahm v. Bloomberg

The petitioner, a former New York City police officer named Lahm, sought an accident disability retirement (ADR) due to stage III squamous cell carcinoma, claiming it was environmentally induced by his prolonged exposure to toxic debris at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001. The Police Department and the Medical Board denied his request for a line-of-duty designation and ADR, asserting no causal relationship, and instead granted him an ordinary disability retirement. The Board of Trustees subsequently denied the ADR application via a tie vote. The court found that the Medical Board failed to consider whether the petitioner's pre-existing condition was aggravated by the WTC exposure. Concluding that the Board of Trustees' denial lacked a rational basis, and noting that the record contained only medical opinions supporting the aggravation claim, the court ruled as a matter of law that the petitioner's cancer was exacerbated by the service-connected September 11, 2001 injury. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's application, annulled the Board of Trustees' determination, and remanded the matter for recomputation of his retirement allowance with an accident disability retirement.

WTC ExposureCancer AggravationAccident Disability RetirementOrdinary Disability RetirementPolice Pension FundLine-of-Duty InjuryCausation StandardMedical BoardTie Vote AnnulmentExacerbation of Pre-existing Condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2011

Drummond v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System's decision, which adopted the Medical Board's recommendation to deny the petitioner's application for disability retirement. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court upheld the Medical Board's determination, finding it to be supported by credible evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, despite conflicting medical conclusions from the petitioner's treating physicians. It was reiterated that resolving such medical conflicts falls solely within the Medical Board's authority, and external findings from the Workers’ Compensation Board or Social Security Administration are not binding on the Medical Board.

Disability retirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemMedical BoardArticle 78 proceedingAdministrative CodeCredible evidenceArbitrary and capriciousTreating physiciansWorkers’ Compensation Board findingsSocial Security Administration findings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christian v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

F. Christian sought accident disability retirement from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System for cataracts linked to a 1975 line-of-duty injury. Despite three ophthalmologists' reports indicating a causal link or aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the medical board denied the application twice, citing insufficient proof and without providing a basis for rejecting the medical evidence. The dissenting opinion by Justice Fein argued that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, advocating for a modification of the judgment to mandate reconsideration by the medical board. The dissent proposed that the medical board review all existing and new medical evidence and clearly state the reasons for its conclusions, emphasizing that the board members were not ophthalmologists and did not examine the petitioner.

Disability retirementCataractsLine of duty injuryMedical evidenceCausal relationshipAggravationPre-existing conditionMedical board reviewArbitrary and capriciousRemand
References
4
Case No. 03-98-00617-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Deborah K. Nordyke v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Deborah K. Nordyke, a licensed vocational nurse, applied for occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after an on-the-job injury. Her application was denied by the ERS medical board, which found no permanent incapacity, a decision later upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the trial court. Nordyke appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Austin, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the validity of an ERS administrative rule defining "incapacity from the further performance of duty." The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, which indicated a lack of objective proof for permanent disability. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the ERS's denial was supported by substantial evidence and that the administrative rule was a reasonable and valid exercise of statutory authority, aligning with the legislative intent for disability retirement.

Occupational DisabilityOn-the-Job InjuryAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Board DecisionPermanent DisabilityVocational NurseGovernment Employee BenefitsTexas Appellate Court
References
12
Case No. 02-14-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2014

William D. Layton v. City of Fort Worth, City of Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund, and Board of City of Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund

Appellant William D. Layton sued the City of Fort Worth and its retirement entities after his disability benefits were terminated. The trial court granted the defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, which Layton appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no statute provided a right to judicial review of the Board’s order terminating disability benefits. Furthermore, Layton had no vested property right in the benefits, and his due course of law claim seeking reinstatement of benefits would improperly control the Board's discretionary decision-making, thus implicating governmental immunity.

Disability BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionJudicial ReviewVested Property RightsDue Course of LawMunicipal Retirement SystemAdministrative OrderDiscretionary AuthorityTexas Constitution
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 9,458 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