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

Thompson v. Seligman

Plaintiff, an injured worker, sued her attorneys, Raymond J. Seligman and his law firm, for legal malpractice. The attorneys allegedly provided negligent advice by mistakenly informing her that she could not pursue a third-party claim for pain and suffering against the Gideon Putnam Hotel, believing she was employed by the hotel. By the time she consulted a different attorney, the statute of limitations for such a claim had expired. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to investigate her employment representation. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding questions of fact regarding the defendants' duty to investigate and their negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the attorneys owed a duty to investigate and that there was a question of fact as to whether they exercised appropriate care in performing that duty, thus precluding summary judgment for the defendants.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty to InvestigateNegligenceThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewAttorney ResponsibilityEmployment Status
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rondon v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Claimant, a bus driver, was injured in 2007 and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits for an eight-month period. The self-insured employer challenged these benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, alleging the claimant worked during the disqualification period and attempted to introduce video evidence. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) refused to admit the video due to lack of authentication by the investigator who filmed it, eventually closing the record when the employer failed to produce all necessary investigators. While the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the investigator's testimony wasn't strictly necessary for authentication, it upheld the WCLJ's closure of the record because the employer hadn't appealed the initial authentication ruling and failed to present all investigators. Consequently, the Board remitted the case for a determination on claimant's disqualification, a decision which the employer appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal as an interlocutory order that did not resolve all substantive issues.

Appeal DismissalInterlocutory OrderEvidence AuthenticationVideo FootageClaimant BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ReviewRecord ClosureAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. New York State Commission of Investigation

Petitioners, Suffolk County District Attorney Patrick Henry and Assistant DA Raymond G. Perini, initiated a proceeding against the New York State Commission of Investigation (S.I.C.) and its chairman, David G. Trager. They alleged the S.I.C. overstepped its jurisdiction, interfered with the DA's duties, and violated their constitutional and statutory rights during a two-year probe into the Suffolk County Police Department and DA's office. Petitioners sought various forms of relief, including declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, and pre-release judicial review of the S.I.C.'s report. The court denied motions for intervention and discovery, concluding that the S.I.C. is a purely investigative body without adjudicatory or prosecutorial powers, thus upholding its enabling act's constitutionality and denying all of the petitioners' requested relief. The court granted the respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Investigatory PowersDue Process RightsJurisdictional DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorari ReviewState Commission of InvestigationGrand Jury AuthorityPublic Official MisconductCivil Rights Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okonski v. Pollio Dairy Products Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1987 and was subsequently paid temporary total disability benefits. Medical evaluations in December 1987 and January 1988 indicated that the claimant had a continuing partial disability but could perform light duty work, which the employer offered. The employer contended that the claimant's loss of wages after January 18, 1988, was due to her failure to accept this light duty offer, constituting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not voluntarily leave the labor market, finding her actions, including her initial reluctance to work the night shift due to its impact on her daughter's well-being and her attempts to contact the employer for alternative arrangements, to be reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its findings.

Workers Compensation AppealLight Duty EmploymentVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketPartial DisabilityWage LossEmployer OfferReasonableness of RefusalNight ShiftDaughter's Well-beingHuman Resources Manager
References
1
Case No. ADJ9708192
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

BRIAN DANSKIN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED, CITY OF CYPRESS, PEMISSIDLY SELF-INSURED

This case involves Brian Danskin, who claimed industrial cumulative trauma in the form of skin cancer/melanoma sustained during his employment as a police officer and District Attorney's investigator. The defendant, County of Riverside, sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Danskin was entitled to the Labor Code section 3212.1 cancer presumption for his investigator role. The defendant argued the investigator position didn't qualify for the presumption and that the injury predated his employment with the county. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, finding that Danskin's extensive law enforcement duties as an investigator were central to his role and qualified him for the cancer presumption under section 3212.1.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBrian DanskinCounty of RiversideCity of CypressPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJindustrial cumulative traumaskin cancermelanoma
References
1
Case No. ADJ10761099
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

TANYA WARD vs. SARTI ENTERPRISES, LLC, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured by a car while investigating a disturbance on employer property after her shift. The defendant argued the injury was not compensable due to the "going and coming rule," asserting the applicant was not acting within the scope of employment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the injury industrial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's investigation conferred a direct benefit to the employer, fitting the "dual purpose" exception to the going and coming rule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFront Desk ManagerRight ShoulderRight ElbowUpper ExtremitiesGoing and Coming RuleDual Purpose ExceptionIndustrial CausationEmployer Benefit
References
10
Case No. ADJ10153886
Regular
Apr 23, 2018

MICHAEL BARROS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The applicant, a sheriff's investigator, injured his right knee while jogging off-duty. The employer, County of Riverside Sheriff's Department, denied the claim, asserting it was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) as an off-duty recreational activity. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, ruling the injury was not compensable because the applicant failed to demonstrate his subjective belief that jogging was objectively reasonable or required by his employment. General employer preferences for physical fitness or its mention in performance evaluations, without specific directives or testing, are insufficient to overcome the statutory bar.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(9)AOE/COEoff-duty recreational activitysubjective beliefobjectively reasonableEzzy testvocational expectationphysical fitness requirementsperformance evaluationssubstantial nexus
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North v. New Venture Gear

The Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on July 27, 2007, ruled that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. This ruling stemmed from an earlier determination by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, who found that the claimant refused a light-duty work offer from the employer and failed to maintain an attachment to the labor market after sustaining work-related wrist, neck, and shoulder injuries. The employer had initially paid benefits but sought suspension in July 2003. The Board’s decision was affirmed, as the court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the light-duty assignment was consistent with the claimant's medical restrictions, as determined by Dr. Richard Zogby, an orthopedic surgeon. The court also noted that the issue of involuntary retirement was not raised or developed by the claimant before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLight-Duty Work RefusalPermanent Partial DisabilityWork RestrictionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionFactual DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceClaimant AppealEmployer Benefits Suspension
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,719 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