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

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mtr. of Green (Republic Steel)

Richard Green, a bricklayer for Republic Steel Corporation, was laid off and subsequently refused an offer of lower-skilled, lower-paying laborer work, citing unsuitability. The Labor Department and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found him entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The employer challenged this, arguing that a collective bargaining agreement's 'Plant Waiver' clause should negate unemployment benefits if alternative work is refused. However, the court held that any agreement to waive unemployment rights is invalid under Labor Law § 595. The primary issue was whether Green had good cause to refuse the laborer position, which the court affirmed was supported by substantial evidence, considering his specialized skills, lack of prior experience as a laborer, and a significant wage differential.

Unemployment BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawSuitable EmploymentRefusal of WorkWaiver of RightsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWage DifferentialSeniority
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Green

The dissenting opinion argues for the reversal of the Board's decision, which had affirmed the Referee's finding that the offered employment was unsuitable. The dissent, led by Herlihy, P. J., contends that a lower salary (15% less) and a perceived downgrade in skills (from bricklayer to laborer) are not sufficient reasons to refuse a job offer, especially when the salary would still substantially exceed unemployment benefits. Citing the precedent of "Matter of Bus", the dissent asserts that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the claim that the work was unsuitable for the claimant by training and experience, thus concluding that the refusal of the job lacked good cause.

Unsuitable employmentUnemployment insuranceDissenting opinionLabor lawWage disputeSkill downgradeAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceReferee decisionBoard affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 1986

Claim of Rourke v. Reichhold Chemical, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant suffered from a permanent total disability due to lead poisoning, a decision upheld on appeal. The employer and its carrier challenged this finding, citing insufficient evidence and alleged due process violations, but their arguments were dismissed. The Board's decision was based on medical consensus that the claimant could not work in lead-exposed environments, combined with the claimant's limited work experience and skills making alternative employment unfeasible. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's conclusion rational and supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice in the employer's inability to cross-examine medical experts since their critical opinion was unanimous.

Workers' CompensationLead PoisoningPermanent Total DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessMedical ReportsConflicting OpinionsEmployment ExperienceOccupational DiseaseAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kowalchyk v. Wade Lupe Construction Co.

The claimant, a carpenter over 60 with an 11th-grade education, fractured his back and wrist in August 1985 while on a construction jobsite. Initially, his physician, Dr. James Slavin, considered him totally disabled, and he received total disability benefits from his employer's carrier. However, in December 1985, the employer reduced benefits to a partial disability rate, relying on a report from their consultant, Dr. Edward Pasquarella. The claimant subsequently filed for compensation, leading to a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and ultimately the Workers’ Compensation Board that he had a total industrial disability. The employer appealed this decision, arguing it lacked substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, considering the claimant’s physical limitations, age, work experience, and limited education, concluding he had no marketable skills outside carpentry.

Workers' CompensationTotal Industrial DisabilityPartial DisabilityMedical Testimony ConflictEarning Capacity AssessmentAppellate ReviewVocational RehabilitationAge & Education FactorsCarpenter InjuryScaffold Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bollella v. Schweiker

This case is an action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which denied the plaintiff's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff, a 52-year-old skilled sheet metal mechanic, suffered a lumbosacral injury and a psychiatric disorder. While an administrative law judge (ALJ) found severe impairment, it was concluded the plaintiff could perform semi-skilled sedentary jobs, thus not qualifying for disability benefits. The court, however, reversed the adverse determination, finding insufficient evidence regarding the transferability of the plaintiff's skills to other occupations, especially considering his age. The case was remanded for a rehearing to specifically address the transferability of the plaintiff's skills.

Disability benefitsSocial SecuritySkill transferabilityVocational expertAdministrative law judgeLumbosacral injuryPsychiatric disorderRemandSedentary workSemi-skilled occupations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp. v. Diamond

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp., a low bidder for two city roofing contracts, had its bids rejected by municipal respondents for failing to meet experience requirements. The IAS Court initially sided with Giampilis, deeming the rejection arbitrary by stating the experience of the Giampilis brothers in a companion corporation should be considered. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the municipal respondents had a rational basis for rejecting the bids. The court highlighted that judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision. It concluded that the bids were non-responsive as the corporate petitioner itself did not meet the specific experience criteria outlined in the bid documents, and there was no legal obligation to 'pierce the corporate veil' to consider the experience of a companion corporation.

Bid RejectionPublic ContractsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCorporate VeilContract BiddingExperience RequirementsGovernment ProcurementNew York LawAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local Union 638

Plaintiffs moved for class action certification against the defendant, Enterprise Association Steamfitters Local Union #638 of U.A., alleging racially discriminatory employment barriers in the steamfitting industry. The plaintiffs, including skilled steamfitters and those capable of learning the trade, claimed that the Union's apprenticeship program and membership requirements were discriminatory. The court found that the requisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were met. The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed as a class action, but the court defined two separate classes: one for skilled journeymen steamfitters and another for individuals capable of learning the skills.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationUnion PracticesApprenticeship ProgramsClass Action CertificationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSteamfitting IndustryMinority Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hurley v. Bowen

Plaintiff William J. Hurley brought this action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denying payment for skilled nursing facility care under Medicare Part A from October 2 to October 23, 1981. Hurley, who suffered a head injury, had his acute care benefits terminated by the hospital's Utilization Review Committee. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) twice denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council, on the grounds that he neither required nor received reimbursable skilled nursing facility care. The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. It noted medical advisor testimony that the care was not inherently complex or exclusively require a skilled nursing facility, and declined to apply the 'treating physician rule' to Dr. Goodman's ambiguous letter.

MedicareHealth InsuranceSkilled Nursing FacilityCustodial CareHospital InsuranceFederal BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilSubstantial EvidenceCerebrovascular Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thornton v. Heckler

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old individual with a heart condition and limited education, challenged the Secretary's denial of disability insurance benefits for a second time. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the plaintiff could perform his past work. Following a district court remand, the ALJ concluded the plaintiff could not return to his prior heavy and skilled work but could undertake semi-skilled sedentary work as an electrical inspector. The key dispute revolved around the transferability of skills under vocational guidelines, specifically whether the plaintiff, of advanced age, required 'very little' vocational adjustment as mandated by § 201.00(f). A vocational expert testified that the plaintiff would need more than minimal adjustment for training and psychological adaptation to a new industry and work setting. The court determined that the Secretary's decision lacked substantial evidence, particularly given the uncontradicted expert testimony. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating benefits due to the plaintiff.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActVocational ExpertSkill TransferabilitySedentary WorkAdministrative Law JudgeRemandSubstantial EvidenceVocational AdjustmentResidual Functional Capacity
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 225 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