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. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hare v. Champion International

The claimant, a former laborer and millwright, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision ruling he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market, despite sustaining multiple work-related injuries, including head, neck, and back trauma. His employment ended in 1999 due to a mill sale, with prior findings attributing his unemployment to economic conditions. Following further hearings and medical examinations, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined he had a moderate, permanent partial disability not prohibiting employment, and lacked labor market attachment. The Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments for total disability and upholding the finding that he had not sought work since December 2000, thus failing to demonstrate the requisite attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEconomic ConditionsUnemploymentDisability BenefitsJudicial AffirmationConflicting Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2009

Claim of Hester v. Homemakers Upstate Group

In 2006, the claimant sustained compensable right hip and back injuries as a home health aide, resulting in a permanent partial disability. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant attached to the labor market, but the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed this determination, ruling that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn. The court affirmed the Board's decision on appeal, emphasizing the claimant's obligation to demonstrate attachment to the labor market by actively seeking employment within medical restrictions after a permanent partial disability finding. The claimant admitted to not having searched for work since the injury and had no future plans to do so. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalMedical RestrictionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceClaimant ObligationsEmployment SearchHome Health Aide
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cole v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Claimant, suffering from a permanent partial disability due to occupational disease from asbestos exposure, chronic bronchitis, and COPD, voluntarily retired at age 69. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, concluding his retirement was unrelated to his disability. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant had demonstrated an attachment to the labor market by actively seeking employment within his medical restrictions. This Appellate Division appeal by the self-insured employer and its third-party administrator resulted in the affirmation of the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the claimant's demonstrated attachment to the labor market despite limiting his job search to his prior field.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureChronic BronchitisCOPDLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary RetirementEmployment SearchMedical Restrictions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shandraw v. Tops Markets, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ironworker, initiated an action against Tops Markets, Inc. and Camridge Construction, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained on a construction project, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) due to a hazardous ground condition. The Supreme Court partially dismissed these claims, notably the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and parts of the remaining claims. On appeal, the court further modified the order, ruling that Labor Law § 241 (6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) was inapplicable as the incident area was not a designated floor or platform. It also concluded that the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action should have been entirely dismissed, asserting that the hazardous condition was readily observable by the plaintiff, thus negating the defendants' duty to protect against it.

Ironworker injuryConstruction site accidentPremises liabilitySummary judgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous conditionReadily observable hazardAppellate reviewPersonal injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ouderkirk v. Nestle Food Co.

Claimant suffered a work-related back injury in 1998, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2006. In 2012, an orthopedic surgeon found total disability, leading to surgery and a proposed weekly compensation rate. The Special Fund objected, seeking claimant's testimony on labor market attachment, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the request and awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, finding involuntary separation from the labor market in 2003 due to the injury, negating the need for testimony. The appellate court reversed, citing a lack of substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant retired in 2003 due to the compensable injury, and prejudiced the Special Fund by denying testimony. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalDisability RetirementSpecial FundSubstantial EvidencePrejudiced PartyRemittalTestimony Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Testani v. Aramark Services

Claimant, a clerk at a university cafeteria, was injured at work and began receiving workers' compensation benefits due to total disability. After the employer's carrier's physician deemed her partially disabled, the employer offered a light-duty assignment, which claimant refused. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge concluded this refusal constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, closing her case. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence to support that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by refusing a light-duty assignment consistent with her limitations, as determined by the carrier's physician. This appeal was brought to challenge the Board's decision, which was ultimately affirmed.

light-duty assignmentvoluntary withdrawallabor marketworkers' compensation benefitspartial disabilitytotal disabilityemployercarriermedical opinionsubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bobbitt v. Peter Charbonneau Construction

In 1998, the claimant, a construction worker, sustained injuries to his neck, shoulder, and back, leading to workers' compensation benefits. The parties stipulated to a permanent partial disability. However, the employer's carrier argued the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, seeking to discontinue benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no voluntary withdrawal due to unrelated health problems, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision and discontinued benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's separation from the labor market was voluntary, as he had not sought employment or participated in vocational services since his accident, and his condition did not prevent all other employment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor Market AttachmentEmployment SearchMedical RestrictionsVocational ServicesAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBenefit Discontinuation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,107 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