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 Burns v. Town of Colonie

Claimant, a police officer, suffered work-related injuries in 2000, leading to a permanent partial disability classification and workers’ compensation benefits. After settling a third-party negligence action in 2004, the employer's carrier accrued a credit, ceasing benefit payments to claimant. The claimant sought continued benefits, initially denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but later reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the carrier failed to prove that the claimant's reduced earning capacity was solely due to factors other than his disability, which was supported by his ongoing medical issues and testimony regarding work limitations.

Reduced Earnings BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityThird-Party Settlement CreditCarrier's Credit ExhaustionLabor Market AttachmentMedical ImpairmentAppellate AffirmationPolice Officer InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Disability Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2002

Millner v. Cablevision

Claimant, a freelance news reporter, suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident on November 15, 1996, leading to a workers\' compensation claim and initial reduced earnings benefits from December 23, 1996. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded these awards for any period after February 1, 2000, determining that the reduction in claimant\'s work hours was not causally linked to her disability. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board\'s ruling, citing substantial evidence that the claimant\'s reduced work schedule stemmed from economic conditions in the job market rather than her disability, despite medical advice regarding work limitations. The court found no reason to disturb the Board\'s factual findings.

Workers\' CompensationReduced EarningsCausally Related DisabilityEconomic FactorsFreelance ReporterMotor Vehicle AccidentChiropractorMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1982

In re the Claim of Peat

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a reduction in her unemployment benefits. The reduction was made under Labor Law § 600(7) due to her receipt of Social Security benefits. The court, citing precedents Matter of Cullen and Rivera v Patino, ruled that Social Security benefits derived from a non-base period employer should not offset unemployment benefits from a different base period employer. As the claimant's Social Security benefits vested from prior employment, the board's decision to reduce her unemployment rate was reversed. The case was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment BenefitsSocial Security OffsetLabor Law 600(7)Benefit Rate ReductionPrior EmploymentBase Period EmployerAdministrative AppealRemittitur
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2005

Weinstein v. Somers Fire District

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter and self-employed real estate agent, sustained a back injury in July 2001 while performing duties. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found he suffered a permanent partial disability and a 50% loss of earning capacity under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, awarding benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and its carrier appealed the decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence including a neurosurgeon's report indicating chronic low back pain, reduced ability to work, and a moderate permanent disability. The report noted that the claimant's duties as a real estate agent were limited, and his average work hours had significantly decreased.

Volunteer firefighterloss of earning capacitypermanent partial disabilityback injuryreal estate agentneurosurgeon reportsubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Boardappealbenefit law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Finocchio v. W. A. White Underwear Corp.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, sustained an injury in 1955 and was later found to have a permanent partial disability in 1963. In 1974, her employer ceased operations, leading to an inability to find new work. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits for reduced earnings, determining she remained in the labor market. The employer appealed, arguing that the reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient proof that the claimant’s disability contributed to her reduced earnings after her employer went out of business, and remitted the case for further findings on the cause of the reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsEconomic ConditionsCausationBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1999

Claim of Fisher v. Combined Life Insurance

In November 1995, the claimant suffered work-related injuries to his neck, back, and knee. He received workers' compensation benefits for total disability until January 5, 1996. Subsequently, the employer challenged his entitlement to partial disability benefits, asserting that the claimant had no reduced earnings after that date. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately concluded that the claimant's wage earning capacity in 1996 surpassed his average weekly wage, thereby denying benefits post-January 5, 1996. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the factual determination that the claimant's 1996 income from self-employment constituted earnings rather than profits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a).

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityReduced EarningsWage Earning CapacitySelf-Employment IncomeProfits vs. EarningsBoard FindingsFactual IssuesCredibilityAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,164 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