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

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
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

McGerald v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a police officer for the Suffolk County Police Department, sought accidental disability retirement benefits following three separate incidents in 1990 and 1998 that allegedly caused disabling back injuries. Respondent Comptroller denied the application. The Comptroller found that the February 2, 1990 and March 30, 1998 incidents (slipping on wet grass, slipping on stairs at police headquarters) did not constitute accidents under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, as they occurred during ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event. For the March 29, 1998 incident, the Comptroller concluded that petitioner failed to provide timely notice to his employer as required by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 (c) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued, with the court confirming the Comptroller's determination and dismissing the petition.

Accidental Disability RetirementPolice Officer InjurySuffolk County PoliceComptroller DeterminationRetirement and Social Security LawTimely NoticeOrdinary Employment DutiesSlipping IncidentBack Injury ClaimCPLR Article 78 Proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Regan

Petitioner, a police officer, was involved in two line-of-duty incidents in 1971 and 1979 where he shot armed individuals. These incidents caused him serious psychological trauma and rendered him incapable of working. He filed for accidental disability retirement benefits in 1982, which were denied by the State Comptroller. The Comptroller’s reasons were that the incidents did not constitute 'accidents' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, and the petitioner failed to timely file notice as required. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing that the incidents arose in the regular course of duty and were within the petitioner’s training and expected duties, thus not constituting accidents. Furthermore, the court found no compliance with the statutory notice requirements.

accidental disability retirementpolice officerline-of-duty injurypsychological traumaState Comptroller determinationadministrative reviewCPLR Article 78 proceedingtimely notice requirementWorkers' Compensation BoardRetirement and Social Security Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 1980

Claim of Pollara v. Air France

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's permanent partial disability stemmed entirely from a May 20, 1976, accident, precluding apportionment despite a prior 1953 back injury. The claimant, a former Navy boiler tender, had undergone back surgery in 1953 but returned to full duty and subsequently worked over two decades in physically demanding roles without significant issues until the 1976 incident at an airline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including medical testimony, supported the finding that the claimant had no pre-existing compensable disability at the time of the 1976 injury. The court noted that apportionment is inapplicable when a prior condition did not constitute a compensation-related disability.

ApportionmentDisabilityBack injuryLaminectomyPre-existing conditionWorkers' CompensationMedical testimonySubstantial evidencePermanent partial disabilityAppellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Ryan v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a highway maintenance worker, sought enhanced disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries in 2007, 2010, and 2011 while performing job duties. His application, based on these three incidents, was initially denied by respondent Comptroller, who found none of the incidents qualified as accidents under the Retirement and Social Security Law. This decision overruled a Hearing Officer's ruling that the July 2011 incident was an accident. The court, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, reviewed the Comptroller's determination. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Comptroller's finding that the injuries were not 'accidents,' as they occurred during regular job duties or involved reasonably anticipated risks. Consequently, the Comptroller's determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability retirement benefitsEnhanced disabilityJob-related injuriesAccident definitionRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller determinationSubstantial evidenceAnticipated risksHighway maintenance worker
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01108 [158 AD3d 965]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Matter of Williams v. New York State Off. of Temporary Disability & Assistance

Claimant, Theresa J. Williams, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. She alleged an elevator door struck her, causing sprains and contusions. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding she exaggerated the incident and her injuries did not arise from employment, based significantly on video surveillance that contradicted her account. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve factual issues and assess witness credibility. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no medical opinion establishing causation based on the incident as depicted in the video.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCredibility AssessmentVideo Surveillance EvidenceElevator IncidentClaim DisallowanceBoard Decision AffirmationFactual Issue ResolutionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hogan v. Hilltop Manor of Niskayuna

Claimant, a respiratory therapist, sustained a work-related back injury in November 1999. She had a history of intermittent back pain but consistently performed her job duties without restriction and missed minimal work prior to the incident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge rejected apportionment, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, attributing 50% of the disability to a preexisting condition. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that apportionment is not warranted where a claimant's prior condition was not disabling in a compensation sense and did not prevent them from effectively performing their job. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

ApportionmentPreexisting ConditionDisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardBack InjuryRespiratory TherapistSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDegenerative Disc DiseaseJob Duties
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zygler v. Tenzer Coat Co.

An employer and carrier appealed a disability award granted to a claimant who suffered a cerebral vascular episode after an oral quarrel with his foreman over work distribution. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined this constituted an accident, reversing a Referee's finding of no accident. The court, however, found that an argument without physical violence, even if it leads to a vascular incident, does not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, especially when such arguments are common in piece work environments. Citing relevant precedents involving similar emotional strain without physical exertion leading to heart attacks or vascular incidents, the court concluded that a finding of accident could not be sustained. Consequently, the award was reversed, and the claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAccident DefinitionCerebral Vascular EpisodeEmotional StrainOral QuarrelDisability AwardEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityPiece WorkPre-existing Condition
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,691 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