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
Sep 28, 2011

Town of Babylon v. Stacy Carson

The Town of Babylon challenged an arbitration award that reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on its employee, Stacy Carson, which involved restoring 10 days of pay and shortening her probation. The Town's petition to vacate the award was initially denied by the Supreme Court, which held the arbitrator had broad authority despite limitations in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, finding the arbitrator exceeded his power because the CBA only permitted a remedy if 'just cause' for discipline was not found, and the arbitrator had, in fact, affirmed 'just cause'. Consequently, the arbitration award's modifications were vacated, and the original penalties were reinstated.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDisciplinary ActionEmployee MisconductJudicial ReviewArbitrator AuthorityVacate AwardConfirm AwardCPLR Article 75Just Cause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2000

Levy v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner, an Administrative Law Judge for the Workers' Compensation Board, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award. The arbitration found that the petitioner's behavior toward an attorney violated WCB policy and the Code of Judicial Conduct. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the arbitrator's award was rational, did not violate public policy, and was not in excess of authority. The court also held that the arbitrator properly considered the petitioner's entire employment record in determining the penalty, as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Administrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardCode of Judicial ConductMisconductCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1996

Suffolk County Water Authority v. Local 393, Utility Workers Union of America

The Suffolk County Water Authority appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award. The arbitration award had modified a penalty imposed by the Authority on an employee from dismissal to a one-year suspension for disconnecting a water meter. The Authority argued this modification violated public policy. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Authority failed to establish public policy considerations or its own rules warranting court intervention to vacate the award.

Arbitration Award VacaturEmployee DisciplinePublic Policy ChallengeAppellate Court DecisionCPLR 7511Judicial Review of ArbitrationSuffolk CountyEmployee MisconductWater AuthorityArbitrator's Power
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Mayo v. Rensselaer Polytech Institute

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to pay a penalty to a claimant under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 for failing to timely pay an award. The Special Fund appealed this decision, contending that the penalty provision applied only to employers or insurance carriers, not to them. The court, however, disagreed with the Special Fund's interpretation. Citing prior case law, the court held that the Special Fund, once liable for compensation benefits due to the passage of time, stands in the shoes of the carrier regarding the obligation to make timely payments. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision to impose the penalty, emphasizing the legislative policy for prompt compensation payments to injured workers.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyTimely PaymentStatutory InterpretationSpecial FundReopened CasesInsurance CarrierAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionLegislative Intent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. ADJ6650899
Regular
Jan 04, 2013

IVAN MORENO vs. SOSA GRANITE & MARBLE, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Board granted reconsideration to clarify an existing award. The administrative law judge had previously imposed a $10,000 penalty for unreasonable delay in paying permanent disability benefits, based on 25% of the overdue amount, capped as allowed by law. The defendants contended the penalty was improperly calculated on the total awarded benefits rather than the amount delayed. The Board affirmed the penalty and its amount, clarifying that it was based on the unpaid permanent disability indemnity due at the time of the award, not the total sum. This penalty was justified because the defendants unreasonably delayed paying any permanent disability advances for over three years after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary.

permanent disabilityLabor Code section 5814penaltyunreasonable delayreconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardadministrative law judgeSosa Granite & MarbleMajestic Insurance CompanyWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. LAO 0784069
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

RICARDO LOPEZ vs. HYON SEOP KIM, Individually and dba H.B. CONSTRUCTION, AARON SONG, an Individual, Illegally Uninsured, THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, As Administrator of THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) was not liable for a penalty on an attorney's fee award due to unreasonable delay. However, Labor Code section 3716.2 obligates the UEBTF to seek such penalties in civil enforcement actions against uninsured employers. Therefore, the Appeals Board amended the award to clarify that while UEBTF is not directly liable for the penalty, it remains part of the underlying award that UEBTF must pursue from the uninsured employers.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFAttorney's fee awardLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 3716.2Civil suitReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJPenalty
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,159 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