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 Carroll v. Fagan, Inc.

The claimant, a welder, was injured while commuting to work after his employer provided a per diem for living expenses due to the distant worksite. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, disallowing the claim. The claimant appealed, arguing entitlement due to the per diem financing travel and his status as an outside employee. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the per diem was for housing, not transportation, and that the claimant reported to a fixed location, thus his commuting injury was not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Commuting InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPer DiemFixed WorkplaceEmployment TravelCompensability of InjuryBoard Decision ReversalAppellate AffirmationEmployer Provided Lodging
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Diem v. Diem & Buerger Insurance

A vice-president of Diem & Buerger Insurance Company sustained a head injury during an off-duty softball game. The employer overtly encouraged participation, seeing it as beneficial for business networking and provided a uniform with the company logo. The workers' compensation carrier disputed coverage, arguing the injury did not arise in the course of employment, referencing Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (1). The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an award of benefits, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support employer sponsorship of the activity due to its overt encouragement for business advantage, thus making the injury compensable.

Workers' CompensationSoftball InjuryEmployer SponsorshipCourse of EmploymentOff-Duty ActivityBusiness BenefitInsurance IndustryLegislative AmendmentTedesco FactorsLarson Commentary
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ventura v. Gotham Per Diem, Inc.

Claimant, a home health aide, sought workers' compensation benefits after injuring her neck and back while lifting a patient. Her employer controverted the claim, and the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately denied benefits, concluding she did not sustain a causally related injury, basing its decision on claimant's deposition testimony and documentary evidence. Claimant appealed, contending that the Board improperly relied on her deposition transcript as she had not been afforded an opportunity to review it, a requirement under CPLR 3116 (a). The appellate court acknowledged the procedural oversight but found no reversible error, as claimant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or desired changes to her testimony. Consequently, the Board's decision to deny benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationHome Health AideNeck InjuryBack InjuryDeposition TestimonyProcedural IrregularityCPLR 3116 (a)CausationBenefits DenialAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Acme Backing Corp. & District 65, Distributive, Processing & Office Workers of America

This Per Curiam decision addresses a demand for arbitration that arose after a petitioner closed its Brooklyn plant and moved manufacturing to two factories in Missouri and Connecticut, controlled by separate corporations. The dispute involved conflicting interpretations of various articles within the collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning the bargaining unit, management's rights, prohibitions against strikes, lockouts, or subcontracting when employees were not working full-time, and the responsibilities of 'successors in interest.' The court affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion to stay arbitration, holding that controversies involving the interpretation or application of the agreement's provisions, or any breach thereof, are exclusively within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, not the courts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosingRelocation of ManufacturingManagement RightsUnion RightsSuccessors in InterestContract InterpretationStay of ArbitrationJurisdiction of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2008

Rylott-Rooney v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-Societa Per Azioni

Plaintiff Linda Rylott-Rooney filed a discrimination suit against her former employer, Alitalia, alleging age and national origin discrimination under New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Alitalia moved to dismiss, arguing the laws were inapplicable because Rylott-Rooney primarily worked and resided in Minnesota. The court denied Alitalia's motion, determining that the termination decision and the actual act of termination both occurred in New York, establishing a sufficient jurisdictional nexus for the New York human rights laws. The ruling distinguished between the location of the discriminatory act and where the impact of termination was felt, affirming that the former was sufficient for jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawJurisdictionLong-Arm JurisdictionWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1978

Claim of Brown v. Time, Inc.

Joseph Brown, a photographer, died from injuries sustained while on a detailed assignment for Time-Life. His widow filed for death benefits, which Time-Life contested, arguing no employer-employee relationship existed. The Workers' Compensation Board found sufficient direction, supervision, and control by Time-Life over Brown to establish an employer-employee relationship, determining he was an employee. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence based on factors such as control over activities, per diem payment, equipment provision, and the right to discharge.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipDeath BenefitsPhotographerControlSupervisionRight to DischargePer Diem PaymentFactual DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06420 [188 AD3d 1366]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Profeta v. Edward J. Bosti Elementary Sch., Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist. of Islip

Claimant, a per diem substitute teacher, sustained injuries but continued working for two weeks post-incident and sought medical treatment five weeks later. The Workers' Compensation Board determined she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market without seeking medical advice and that any subsequent loss of earnings was not causally related to her compensable injuries. The Board noted claimant's choice to pursue other employment opportunities rather than substitute teaching. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's factual determinations regarding voluntary withdrawal and the cause of lost earnings.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalVoluntary WithdrawalSubstitute TeacherConcurrent EmployersEarning CapacityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical TreatmentEmployment Choices
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1989

In re the Claim of O'Flaherty

Claimant, an industrial engineer for Glie Farms, became unemployed due to the farm's bankruptcy. First American Bank of New York subsequently engaged the claimant to continue similar computer work for accounts receivable. The Bank classified claimant as an independent contractor, paying him per diem without withholding taxes or providing supervision. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially ruled that the claimant was an employee of the Bank, thereby entitling him to unemployment insurance benefits. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence of supervision, direction, or control by the Bank to establish an employer-employee relationship, thus denying the claimant benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipBankruptcyAccounts ReceivableLack of SupervisionPer DiemForm 1099New York LawAppellate Division
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 612 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