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
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. ADJ3817836 (SJO 0250881)
Regular
May 31, 2012

ZUFAN A. REDA vs. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns applicant Zufan A. Reda's claim for permanent total disability due to a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering the development of the record because neither the applicant's QME, Dr. Sidle, nor the defendant's QME, Dr. Keins, provided substantial evidence regarding the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB found that Dr. Sidle's report incorrectly addressed causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability, and Dr. Keins' report was rejected as non-substantial due to prior rulings on industrial causation. Therefore, the WCAB has appointed Dr. Roy Curry as a "regular physician" to conduct a new evaluation on the issue of psychiatric permanent disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationDevelopment of RecordLabor Code section 5701Industrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceSection 5803Section 5804Section 5410Permanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. ADJ8788440
Regular
May 12, 2014

ROBERT WATSON vs. NOR-CAL MOVING SERVICES, VANLINER INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Robert Watson sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that denied temporary disability benefits from August 27, 2013. The applicant argued that his treating physician's records constituted substantial evidence of his inability to perform modified duty, and that the WCJ should have developed the record further. The majority of the WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report that found no substantial evidence to support the claim. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing that the record should be further developed to clarify the treating physician's opinion on the applicant's ability to comply with employer-offered travel arrangements, which was the core dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Facttemporary disability indemnitymodified dutysubstantial evidencedevelop the recordtreating physicianadministrative law judgedissenting opinion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. Astrue

Plaintiff Mary Price challenged the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits for her infant grandson, A.N., by the Commissioner of Social Security. The court determined that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to fulfill her duty to develop the administrative record by neglecting to obtain medical records from A.N.'s treating psychiatrist and doctor, despite having identifying information. Furthermore, the ALJ did not secure complete educational records or address inconsistencies in the existing ones. Consequently, the court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, partially granting the plaintiff's motion to remand the case for further evidence development, while denying the request for reassignment to a different ALJ.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeChild DisabilityADHD DiagnosisAdministrative RecordJudicial ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsTreating Physician RuleMedical EvidenceEducational Records
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Barnhart

Antonia Sanchez sought review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claims for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The District Court identified two key issues: the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) failure to fully develop the record regarding Sanchez's fibromyalgia diagnosis from the Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD), and errors made by the vocational expert in identifying available employment opportunities due to inconsistencies with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The ALJ had failed to pursue HJD medical records after a subpoena went unanswered, despite Sanchez appearing pro se and with a language barrier, thus violating the heightened duty to develop the record. Additionally, the vocational expert incorrectly categorized certain jobs as light-exertional when the DOT defined them as medium. Consequently, the Court granted Sanchez's motion to remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, denying the Commissioner's cross-motion.

Social Security BenefitsDisability ClaimsALJ Duty to Develop RecordVocational Expert TestimonyFibromyalgia DiagnosisPro Se ClaimantMedical EvidenceRemand for Further ProceedingsSSI Benefits ReviewDictionary of Occupational Titles
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, comprising local condominium boards, tenants, and residents, challenged the New York State Urban Development Corporation's (UDC) determination to acquire a lot for a homeless housing facility. They argued that UDC exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, its findings were defective, the project's funding was illegal, and its use of override powers was improper. The court affirmed UDC's determination, concluding that its actions were within its statutory authority, its findings were well-supported by the record, and the funding and override powers were appropriately exercised. Additionally, the court reviewed and upheld the Housing Finance Agency's (HFA) negative environmental declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court also dismissed claims of unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, referencing established precedents.

CondemnationEminent DomainUrban DevelopmentHomeless HousingSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewStatutory JurisdictionOverride PowersPublic PurposeBlighted Areas
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,631 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