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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Browne v. Medford Multicare

The claimant, a certified nurse's aide, sustained injuries after falling at work and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. After rejecting multiple offers for light-duty assignments, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier contended that she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board concurred with the employer's assertion, ruling that the claimant had no compensable lost time following the final light-duty work offer. This decision was appealed. The court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence, including the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon who stated that the claimant had a moderate partial disability but was capable of performing light-duty work within specified restrictions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDisability AssessmentCertified Nurse's AideEmployer Offer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yannucci v. Consolidated Freightways

A claimant, a truck driver, sustained back and shoulder injuries after striking a curb. He returned to a light-duty clerical position but later retired. The Workers' Compensation Board denied him further benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. On appeal, the central issue was whether his disability caused or contributed to his retirement. Conflicting medical opinions were presented, with his treating physician recommending retirement due to a 75% permanent partial disability, while the employer's physician believed he could continue light-duty work. The Board credited the employer's physician, noting the employer's accommodations and no lost work time in the light-duty role. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported its decision.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketDisability benefitsLight-duty workMedical evidencePermanent partial disabilityCredibility determinationSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Peluso v. Fairview Fire District

The claimant, a firefighter captain, retired in May 1993 due to a disabling back condition from work-related injuries sustained over 20 years of employment. He applied for various disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits, concluding he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market by failing to accept an available light-duty assignment. The chief of the fire department testified that light-duty positions were available and the claimant refused one prior to retirement without citing work-related injury as his reason. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, noting medical evidence showed only a partial disability and no inability to perform light-duty tasks. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight-Duty AssignmentFirefighterDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewMedical EvidencePartial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
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
Apr 24, 1995

Claim of Lawrence v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Claimant, an auto mechanic, suffered work-related back injuries in 1987 and 1989, leading to work restrictions and light-duty assignments. Despite performing light duties, the employer issued a "Final Warning" and later terminated him in September 1990, citing absenteeism, poor work performance, and insubordination after permanent medical restrictions prevented him from his original job. Claimant filed a complaint alleging discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld a WCLJ's determination that the employer violated § 120 by discharging the claimant in retaliation for his compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence despite the employer's claims of nondiscriminatory reasons, upholding the Board's resolution of factual and credibility issues.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationEmployer RetaliationLight Duty WorkMedical RestrictionsAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformanceInsubordinationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 1987

Claim of Muzio v. City of Albany

In 1985, a laborer for the City of Albany sustained severe chest and leg injuries in a motor vehicle accident, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The claim was contested by the employer, who argued the claimant refused available light work and voluntarily left the job market. Medical testimonies from Dr. John Fortune and Dr. Dominic Belmonte established that the claimant was restricted to light duties, specifically prohibiting heavy lifting. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claimant's benefits, determining he had a moderate partial disability and that the work offered by the employer exceeded the medical restrictions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the employer's "light duty" tasks, including lifting 50-pound salt bags, were beyond medical limitations, and therefore, the claimant's refusal did not constitute a voluntary removal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentChest InjuriesLeg InjuriesModerate Partial DisabilityLight Duty RefusalVoluntary Removal from Labor MarketMedical RestrictionsEmployer AppealBoard Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Serwetnyk v. USAir, Inc.

Claimant, an aircraft mechanic for USAir, Inc., sustained an employment-related injury. After being released for light-duty work, he was offered a position in Roanoke, Virginia. Claimant initially reported to Roanoke but then requested vacation and subsequently failed to return to work, explaining his refusal was due to the location. He was terminated for job abandonment. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied benefits from the termination date, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that claimant's refusal to accept the light-duty assignment in Roanoke constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLight-Duty RefusalJob AbandonmentEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRelocation PolicyDisability BenefitsMonroe County
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02208 [193 AD3d 1216]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Canela (Sky Chefs, Inc.)

Rolando Canela, a caterer, sustained a work-related back injury in May 2018. He was awarded temporary partial disability benefits, but the employer and its carrier (appellants) challenged the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that he maintained attachment to the labor market. Appellants argued Canela refused a light-duty offer and had an inadequate independent job search. The Board, however, found no specific light-duty offer and deemed his job search, involving about two dozen online applications, sufficiently diligent. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported its determination that Canela did not reject a suitable work offer and demonstrated an attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentLight-Duty WorkVoluntary WithdrawalSubstantial EvidenceJob SearchDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentEmployer Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,297 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