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
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neal v. Blue Circle Cement

The claimant, a laborer, suffered a compensable back injury in November 1998 and returned to work after eight months. In January 2002, he sustained another back injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that the January 2002 injury was an aggravation of the prior 1998 injury, assigned disability levels from January 2002 to April 2003, and found no compensable lost time thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence, including medical testimony and MRI comparisons, to support the Board’s determination regarding the aggravation of the injury and the disability levels. The court also upheld the Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical evidence and make credibility determinations, particularly in light of evidence that the claimant exaggerated his symptoms.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravation of InjuryDisability LevelsMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Fave v. St. Lawrence County

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in October 1992. Years later, in November 1996, he was diagnosed with sciatica and a herniated disc, leading to surgery in March 1997. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his back condition was causally related to the 1992 injury. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting medical evidence supporting the causal relationship from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner, despite the employer's consultant expressing doubts. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the employer's request for further record development due to untimeliness.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealAffirmationTimelinessRecord Development
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02252 [195 AD3d 40]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2021

Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put - Back Litig.

This case addresses contractual disputes arising from the pooling and securitization of residential mortgages (RMBS). Computershare Trust Company, National Association, acting as a Separate Securities Administrator, sued Natixis Real Estate Holdings LLC (and its predecessor) for breaching a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) by failing to identify and repurchase nonconforming mortgages. Natixis, in turn, filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Securities Administrator and Master Servicer), alleging Wells Fargo breached its PSA duties to notify of breaches and supervise the Servicer. The Appellate Division ruled that Natixis's statute of limitations defense, based on the borrowing statute (CPLR 202), was not waived, overturning the lower court's decision on this point. It affirmed the dismissal of Natixis's contractual indemnification claim against Wells Fargo but allowed Natixis's independent breach of contract claims (failure to notify and failure to supervise) against Wells Fargo to proceed.

RMBSPut-Back LitigationContractual ObligationsStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteLaw of the CaseWaiverIndemnificationBreach of ContractSecurities Administrator
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loucks v. Board of Education of Middle County School District No. 11

Margaret R. Loucks, a former librarian for the Middle County School District No. 11, filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She claimed that the school district's early retirement incentive plan discriminated against her because employees who retired at age 55 received 100% health insurance benefits, while she, having retired at 58, received only 50%. Loucks contended that the plan, which based eligibility on age 55, arbitrarily discriminated. The U.S. District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, examined cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court found the retirement incentive plan to be permissible under the ADEA's safe harbor provision, referencing Auerbach v. Board of Education, which upheld similar early retirement plans. The Court concluded that the plan was voluntary, offered for a reasonable period, and did not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of age by providing the same benefits to all eligible participants at 55. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEarly Retirement IncentiveADEASummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementSafe Harbor ProvisionHealth Insurance BenefitsEmployment LawFederal CourtDiscrimination Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pistone v. Sam's Club

Claimant, a sales representative, injured her back in October 1999 while lifting heavy materials and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a causally related temporary total disability and awarded benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. However, the WCLJ denied the employer's carrier's request to cross-examine the claimant’s attending physician. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, citing prejudice to the employer due to the denial of cross-examination and inconsistencies in medical reports. The court also noted a conflicting opinion from an independent medical examination. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealBack Injury ClaimMedical Evidence DiscrepancyRight to Cross-ExamineDue Process ViolationRemittalTemporary Total DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate Division Review
References
6
Case No. WCB No. G076 2707
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Matter of Duncan v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This Board Panel Decision concerns an appeal by the applicant, Joseph Lafayette, regarding a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) finding on the causal relationship of his back injury. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, neck, and shoulder during his employment. The WCLJ had previously established a causal relationship for the neck and shoulder injuries but disallowed the claim for the back injury. Upon review, the Board Panel determined that the medical evidence in the record supports a causal relationship between the claimant's employment and his lower back injury. As a result, the Panel modified the WCLJ's decision to establish a causal relationship for the back injury, while affirming the other aspects of the original decision.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidencePanel ReviewWCLJ DecisionModificationAppeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03275 [217 AD3d 1168]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Matter of Jazmyne VV.

This case involves an appeal by Jazmyne VV. from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County, which adjudicated her a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS). The principal of Randall Middle School, Juliann Quinn, filed the PINS petition due to Jazmyne's habitual truancy and disobedient behavior. Jazmyne argued that the PINS petition was jurisdictionally defective, citing the absence of a manifestation determination hearing and the Probation Department's failure to provide its case record to Family Court. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that a manifestation determination hearing was not warranted as Jazmyne was not a special education student at the time, the record was made available to the court, and the petition adequately detailed diversion efforts.

PINSTruancySpecial Education Student StatusManifestation Determination HearingDiversion ServicesFamily Court Act Article 7Appellate ReviewJurisdictional DefectsCortland CountySchool Discipline
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,251 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