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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant suffered compensable right knee injuries in 1992 and 1994, leading to a stipulated 22.5% schedule loss of use award in 2001, after which the cases were closed. Upon reopening in 2005, liability shifted from the employer's workers' compensation carrier to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Following a recurrence of injuries in October 2005, the Fund sought a credit for the prior schedule loss of use award paid by the carrier, which was initially denied but later granted by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the Fund should not receive credit for awards commencing more than two years prior to the transfer of liability, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) and prior case law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that the Fund assumes the carrier's rights and responsibilities, including any existing credits, and distinguished the cited precedent based on a lack of injury reclassification in the current case.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSchedule Loss of Use AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCredit Against AwardsLiability TransferRecurrence of InjuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionStipulationCase Reopening
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Labs

A claimant sustained a right hand injury in 1993, receiving workers' compensation benefits. The case was later reopened to include carpal tunnel syndrome, and then closed in 2003 regarding the right hand injury. In 2006, the case was reopened again, addressing the liability of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that liability had shifted to the Special Fund. The Special Fund appealed, contending the Board failed to rationally explain its departure from prior precedent. The appellate court agreed with the Special Fund, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesBoard PrecedentAppellate ReviewRemittalLiability ShiftSchedule Loss of UseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. UNKNOWN CASE NUMBER
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1970

Matter of Stange v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc.

This is a placeholder summary. No legal text was provided for analysis, hence specific case details, parties involved, and the judicial outcome cannot be accurately extracted. The purpose of this output is to demonstrate the JSON structure when actual data is unavailable. Therefore, all fields contain placeholder values.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canfora v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 2001, and in 2008, the employer's carrier requested liability transfer to the Special Fund. The Board initially transferred liability retroactively to May 30, 2006. Following an appeal and remittal due to a failure to explain a departure from prior precedent regarding the seven-year lapse rule, the Board reaffirmed its retroactive transfer, providing reasons for its stance. The Special Fund then appealed this decision. The Court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a does not preclude a retroactive transfer of liability to a period within seven years of the injury date, and that the Board provided sufficient reasons for deviating from prior decisions.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferRetroactive Application of LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Agency DecisionAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentWorkers' Compensation BoardLegal Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Norcross v. Camden Central School

This case involves an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling that shifted liability to the Special Fund under WCL § 25-a, regarding a claimant's work-related injury from 2001. The Special Fund contended that the Board's decision deviated from its own precedent by shifting liability without requiring proof that further medical or indemnity benefits were payable, which is a necessary condition for reopening a claim for this purpose. The court determined that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its prior decisions, thereby rendering its determination arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftAgency PrecedentRational ExplanationArbitrary and CapriciousRFA-2 formMedical BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsAppellate DivisionRemittal
References
7
Case No. 518297
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2014

MatterofKhomitchvCrotchedMountainCommunity

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had rescinded a transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, without prejudice, pending evidence on the true nature of a $4,750 payment made to the claimant, which was labeled for medical and transportation expenses (M&T). The employer and carrier appealed, challenging the Special Fund's standing to litigate whether the M&T payment was, in fact, an advance payment of compensation that would preclude the transfer of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Special Fund does have standing to challenge the nature of such payments when it involves a claim against the Fund, and that the Board adequately distinguished its prior precedents.

Workers' Compensation LawSection 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferAdvance Payment of CompensationMedical and Transportation ExpensesStanding to LitigateAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationCase Reopening
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17,089 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