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
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Correa

The case involves William Garnett, who was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and criminal mischief. Following his arraignment, his license was suspended pending prosecution. He applied for a hardship privilege, arguing that as a New York City firefighter, he required a license for his employment. The court, presided over by Judge William Garnett, examined the statutory definition of 'extreme hardship' under the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which requires demonstrating an inability to obtain alternative means of travel to employment. The court found that despite his occupation and claims of needing to drive, the defendant failed to prove extreme hardship, citing the availability of extensive public transportation in New York City. Consequently, the application for a hardship privilege was denied.

DWIDriving While IntoxicatedLicense SuspensionHardship PrivilegeVehicle and Traffic LawExtreme HardshipFirefighterPublic TransportationCriminal MischiefKings County Criminal Court
References
1
Case No. CV-23-2356
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Ackerler

Claimant John Ackerler appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his request for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Ackerler, who suffered a work-related back injury in 2012 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to permanent total disability due to financial hardship. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that Ackerler failed to demonstrate extreme hardship, citing insufficient evidence regarding household income and questionable expenses. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that Ackerler did not show financial hardship beyond the ordinary.

Extreme HardshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipHousehold IncomeMonthly ExpensesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01843 [236 AD3d 1254]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Mystkowski v. Monpat Constr. Inc.

The claimant, Bogdan Mystkowski, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request for an extreme hardship redetermination. Mystkowski, who suffered a back injury in 2011 and was found to have a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to a permanent total disability due to alleged financial hardship. The Board, affirming a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, found that Mystkowski's claimed expenses, including a luxury vehicle and high food costs attributed to an inability to cook, did not meet the threshold of 'unusual or unexpected expenses' for extreme hardship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence, noting that demonstrating expenses exceed income does not automatically mandate an extreme hardship finding.

Extreme HardshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipIndemnity BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAdministrative Appeal
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05006
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Brown v. Plans Plus Ltd.

Claimant Janice Brown was injured in a work-related accident in 2010, resulting in a permanent partial disability and 80% loss of wage earning capacity. She was entitled to 425 weeks of indemnity benefits. Prior to their exhaustion, she sought an extreme hardship redetermination to be reclassified to permanent total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board denied. The Board interpreted 'extreme hardship' as requiring financial hardship beyond the ordinary, considering claimant's assets, income, and expenses. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation and application of the extreme hardship standard rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting claimant's home equity loan and luxury vehicle lease.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityExtreme Hardship RedeterminationWage Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsReclassificationPermanent Total DisabilityFinancial HardshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 535032
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Charlene Davis

Charlene Davis, a licensed practical nurse, sustained two work-related injuries in 2010, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 2013 and 425 weeks of indemnity benefits. Prior to benefits exhaustion in 2020, she sought reclassification to permanent total disability based on extreme hardship under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). A Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted her request, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling she failed to show extreme financial hardship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing with the interpretation of 'extreme hardship' as financial hardship 'beyond the ordinary and existing in a very high degree' and finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence regarding claimant's income, assets, and expenses.

Extreme HardshipPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsReclassificationStatutory InterpretationFinancial HardshipSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2002

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Equipment Co.

This case addresses an action brought by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) to collect unpaid premiums and interest on a workers' compensation insurance policy from the defendants. The central legal issue revolves around the interpretation of State Finance Law § 18 (10), specifically whether SIF must conduct a public hardship review before initiating a debt collection lawsuit. The motion court initially considered this review a condition precedent but later modified its stance, affirming that a review is required at some point, though not necessarily as a condition precedent. The dissenting opinion argues that the statute's intent is to facilitate revenue generation through debt collection, not to impose a mandatory, lengthy hardship review in every instance. It concludes that a hardship review is only warranted under specific conditions when a debtor requests it and demonstrates fiscal hardship.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsState Finance LawDebt CollectionHardship ReviewSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentFiscal ViabilityCondition Precedent
References
13
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01848 [236 AD3d 1271]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Ackerler v. Asplundh

Claimant John Ackerler suffered a work-related back injury in 2012, later amended to include depressive disorder, resulting in a permanent partial disability and 82% loss of wage-earning capacity, entitling him to 450 weeks of indemnity benefits. In December 2022, Ackerler requested an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3) before his benefits expired. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied his request, finding he failed to demonstrate extreme hardship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that extreme hardship requires financial hardship beyond the ordinary and in a very high degree, considering assets, expenses, and household income. The Board found Ackerler's reported income not credible due to lack of specific income from other household members, and identified unnecessary expenses, concluding the denial was supported by substantial evidence.

Extreme Hardship RedeterminationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityFinancial HardshipHousehold IncomeMonthly ExpensesAdministrative AppealAffirmation of DecisionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. CV-23-0250
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Janice Brown

Claimant Janice Brown appeals a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which denied her request for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Brown was classified with a permanent partial disability in 2014 due to a work-related back injury from 2010. She sought reclassification to permanent total disability, arguing extreme financial hardship as her expenses exceeded her income by $300. The Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding that she did not demonstrate "extreme hardship" as defined by statute and judicial precedent, noting her assets like an equity loan and a luxury vehicle lease, and unaccounted expenses.

Extreme hardshipPermanent partial disabilityPermanent total disabilityWage earning capacityIndemnity benefitsWorkers' compensation lawFinancial hardshipReclassificationStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Bank of New York (In Re Goldman)

Cecilia R. Goldman, a Chapter 7 debtor, sought to discharge her student loan obligation from The Bank of New York, guaranteed by NYSHESC, claiming undue hardship due to health issues and related medical expenses. NYSHESC objected, stating that the five-year repayment period had not elapsed and that repayment would not cause undue hardship. The court determined that despite her medical condition, Goldman was employed with a $17,000 annual salary, was single, had no dependents, and had discharged over $13,000 in other debts. The court concluded that Goldman failed to prove the 'hopelessness or exceptional circumstances' necessary for an undue hardship finding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), and consequently, her complaint was dismissed.

Student LoanBankruptcyUndue HardshipChapter 7DischargeabilityMedical ConditionFinancial HardshipGuaranteed LoanFederal Bankruptcy CodeDebtor-Creditor Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 116 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