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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2002

D'Amato v. Access Manufacturing, Inc.

The plaintiff, a welder's assistant, sustained personal injuries when his hand was caught in a metal grinding machine at the defendant's Queens manufacturing facility. The plaintiff sued the defendant, a corporation that manufactured metal doors and handrailings. The Supreme Court, Queens County, entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in precluding a special employment defense under the Workers' Compensation Law, based on the doctrine of law of the case. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the law of the case doctrine was misapplied as the special employment issue had not been previously litigated. A new trial was granted on the issue of liability only, while the jury's findings as to damages were affirmed. The court also noted errors in permitting speculative expert testimony and limiting the defendant's ability to refresh the plaintiff's recollection.

Personal InjurySpecial EmploymentLaw of the CaseAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsLiabilityDamagesNew TrialJury VerdictCorporate Entity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marin v. San Martin Restaurant, Inc.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, and his wife initiated the action after the worker allegedly sustained injuries while lifting an overloaded garbage bag from the defendant's restaurant. They claimed the defendant created a dangerous condition and failed to provide a safe place to work. The appellate court determined that the hazard of lifting heavy garbage bags is inherent in a sanitation worker's duties and that an owner typically does not owe a duty to protect employees from hazards stemming from a contractor's methods without supervisory control. Given that the injured plaintiff opted to perform his task without assistance despite having resources, the court reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaint.

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerSummary JudgmentAssumption of RiskWorkplace HazardOwner LiabilitySupervisory ControlAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Grande'Vie Senior Living Community

Plaintiff John A. Wheeler suffered injuries after slipping on ice and falling in the parking lot of defendant's assisted living facility while helping his mother-in-law move during a snowstorm. The area where he fell had been shoveled, but ice was present beneath a thin layer of snow. Wheeler and his wife initiated a personal injury action, which the Supreme Court dismissed by granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the "storm in progress" doctrine. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant's snow removal efforts created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards of the storm. Furthermore, the court found no duty to warn of icy conditions during an ongoing storm under the specific circumstances, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityStorm in Progress DoctrineSummary JudgmentLandowner DutySnow RemovalIceNegligenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1970

Steward v. Barbaro

The petitioner, a public assistance recipient for herself and six children, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the respondent's denial of emergency assistance after a theft of her $187 allowance. The court found that the respondent's refusal to provide assistance was not arbitrary, as the petitioner failed to personally report the loss to the police or the respondent before commencing the proceeding, thus preventing an opportunity to investigate. Furthermore, the court noted that Social Services Department regulations were amended in January 1970 (18 NYCRR 372.2 [e]) to exclude destitution caused by theft as a basis for emergency assistance, thereby overriding prior case law. Although a special allowance may be made for lost or stolen cash, it is not a mandatory directive from the court. Consequently, the court granted judgment in favor of the respondent, dismissing the petition.

Public AssistanceEmergency AssistanceTheft of FundsArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative DiscretionDenial of BenefitsSocial Services RegulationsInvestigation RequirementNassau CountyPetition Dismissal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,456 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