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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bal v. Sidewalk of New York Productions, Inc.

Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employer contended the termination was due to unsatisfactory performance prior to the reported injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, questioning the claimant's testimony and a tape recording. A Board panel affirmed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's discretionary denial, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant had ample opportunity to litigate the credibility issue and further review was unwarranted.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimCredibility IssueDiscretionary ReviewFull Board ReviewPro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUnsatisfactory Job Performance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandhu v. United States

Jaswinder Sandhu, an Indian national, sought judicial review after USCIS denied his application for adjustment of status. He initially overstayed his visitor's visa, married a U.S. citizen (Rowena Jones), and filed for adjustment, but his marriage was later annulled due to fraud. A second application, based on an approved alien worker petition, was also denied by USCIS, which questioned the bona fide nature of his first marriage despite submitted evidence. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacked power to review discretionary immigration rulings. The court granted the government's motion, determining that USCIS's decision involved factual and discretionary findings not subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and that the annulled marriage rendered him ineligible from the beginning.

Immigration LawAdjustment of StatusJudicial ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)AnnulmentFraudBona Fide MarriageFederal CourtsDiscretionary Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Greenough v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling regarding a 15% schedule loss of use and reimbursement. The Board's denial was based on the claimant's failure to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a) concerning proof of service. The court determined that although the claimant did not provide proper proof of service, the employer was not prejudiced as they filed a timely rebuttal and did not claim lack of notice. Consequently, the court held that the Board possessed the discretionary authority under 12 NYCRR 300.30 to review the application despite the administrative rule violation. The decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the Board to consider exercising its discretionary power.

AppealWorkers' CompensationAdministrative RulesProof of ServiceDiscretionary PowerReimbursementSchedule LossPrejudiceRemittalBoard Review
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00909 [213 AD3d 1118]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Rodriguez v. American Bridge Co.

Manuel Rodriguez, a truck driver, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disqualifying him from future wage replacement benefits due to fraud. Rodriguez had an established claim for injuries from an October 2018 accident and received disability awards. He repeatedly denied working or volunteering at hearings but was later found to be an elected constable in Pennsylvania. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) imposed mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Board upheld the discretionary penalty, finding his deception egregious and that his application for review of the WCLJ's initial finding of fraud was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to review the untimely application and that the permanent disqualification was proportionate to the claimant's protracted deception.

fraudworkers' compensationwage replacement benefitsdiscretionary penaltymandatory penaltyuntimely applicationinterlocutory decisionabuse of discretionegregious deceptionappellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hope for Youth, Inc. v. State of New York

Claimant, a member of the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan (CRISP), a workers’ compensation self-insured trust, brought a claim against the State of New York after the Workers’ Compensation Board assumed control of CRISP. Claimant alleged interference with property, conversion, interference with contract, and fraud and deceit, arguing the Board's takeover was unwarranted as CRISP had raised sufficient funds. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that reviewing an administrative agency's discretionary determination falls under a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, not the Court of Claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the claim challenged the Board's discretionary actions, which are not subject to review in the Court of Claims.

Workers' Compensation TrustSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Agency ReviewCPLR Article 78Court of ClaimsSelf-Insured TrustBoard TakeoverDiscretionary DeterminationsAppealNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Broomfield v. Roosevelt Hotel Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the employer’s request for full Board review. The employer had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings regarding a discrimination complaint filed by the claimant, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) to find discrimination. The employer’s subsequent untimely appeal to a Board panel was denied for lack of good cause. The employer then sought full Board review, which was also denied. The court affirmed the denial of full Board review, finding no abuse of discretion by the Board panel, as their decision was unanimous and based on a full consideration of the matter.

DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation BoardUntimely AppealFull Board ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsFailure to AppearJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,107 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