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

Claim of Hakam v. Herman H. Schwartz, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision filed March 10, 1971, which discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(8). The claimant suffered a compensable myocardial infarction in 1963, resulting in a permanent partial disability, and another in 1968 while working for the appellant employer. The employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, leading to a hearing on the employer's prior knowledge of the claimant's pre-existing impairment. The Referee discharged the Fund, and the Board affirmed this decision. The court, citing Matter of Bellucci v. Tip Top Farms, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's findings on the issues of employer knowledge and informed decision.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial DisabilityEmployer KnowledgePre-existing ImpairmentInformed DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1980

Bass v. Westchester Concrete, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which was initially filed on March 14, 1980, and later amended on September 17, 1980. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15(8), claiming a known prior physical impairment of bilateral deafness in the claimant. The record established that the claimant's total disability stemmed from a severe psychoneurotic disorder, with a pre-existing psychiatric condition materially and substantially exacerbating the present disability due to a compensable accident. However, the appeal found no substantial evidence that the employer had prior knowledge of this psychiatric condition; only the bilateral deafness was known, which was deemed incidental to the current disability. Consequently, the Board's decision, which presumably denied reimbursement, was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPrior Physical ImpairmentBilateral DeafnessPsychoneurotic DisorderPre-existing ConditionEmployer KnowledgeTotal DisabilityCompensable Accident
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1977

O'Reilly v. Raymond Concrete Piling, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board initially discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability, attributing the claimant's disability solely to a 1969 accident based on Dr. Williams' testimony. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the majority, finding support in the record. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, citing a lack of substantial evidence to prove the disability was not materially and substantially greater due to both a 1957 injury and the 1969 accident, and noted the absence of findings regarding the employer's knowledge of the claimant's permanent physical impairment from the 1957 injury. The dissent also referenced prior similar cases.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundPermanent Physical ImpairmentSubsequent DisabilityMaterially and Substantially GreaterEmployer KnowledgeMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionDissenting Opinion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Griffin v. John Civetta & Sons

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision discharging the Special Disability Fund from liability. The claimant sustained two back injuries, one prior to employment in September 1973 and a compensable one in October 1974 while working for the employer. Subsequently, the claimant's disability was apportioned 50% to each accident. The central issue was whether the employer had the requisite knowledge of the claimant's pre-existing permanent impairment, a condition for the Special Disability Fund's liability under Workers’ Compensation Law section 15 (subd 8, par [d]). The Board discredited evidence provided by the appellants, including a statement prepared by the employer's carrier and the job superintendent's vague testimony, finding insufficient proof of employer knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the employer lacked the necessary knowledge.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundPre-existing ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeDisability ApportionmentAppellate ReviewCredibility of EvidenceWorkers’ Compensation LawBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruane v. Cushman

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The central issue was whether the employer had prior knowledge of the claimant's pre-existing permanent physical impairment before accidental injuries sustained in 1969 and 1971. The claimant testified to a 1962 back injury and the employer's awareness of her ongoing back problems. The employer's son also testified about communicating his opinion of the claimant's permanent disability to his father, though he was unsure if his father accepted this opinion prior to the accidents. The court noted that the appellants bore the burden of proving employer knowledge and a good faith belief in the permanency of the impairment. Ultimately, the testimony regarding employer knowledge was deemed equivocal, leading to the affirmation of the Board's decision to discharge the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer KnowledgePre-existing Permanent Physical ImpairmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryDischarge of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardCredibility of Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Margiasso v. Levitt

This case involves a petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits, which was denied by the State Comptroller. The petitioner, a police officer for the City of Syracuse, claimed total and permanent disability due to arthritis resulting from a motorcycle accident in 1951. His application was filed in 1976, and denied due to the petitioner's failure to file notice of the accident with the Comptroller, as required by subdivision c of section 363 of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, noting that the petitioner did not personally file the notice and no good cause was shown for the omission. The court also rejected the argument that notice to the employer, who had actual knowledge, sufficed under the Workers’ Compensation Law, as the employer did not provide compensation coverage.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice Officer DisabilityNotice of Accident FilingRetirement and Social Security LawWorkers' Compensation Law NoticeArthritis DisabilityState Comptroller DeterminationJudicial Review CPLR Article 78Employer Knowledge of AccidentCompensation Coverage Requirement
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,320 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