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

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Globe Insurance v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp.

Plaintiff, an insurer named Royal, sued its insured, Chock Full O'Nuts Corporation, for unpaid insurance premiums and service charges. Chock counterclaimed, alleging unfair claim settlement practices under Insurance Law § 40-d, breach of contractual and fiduciary duties, and sought punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Special Term dismissed the fourth counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim for punitive damages, holding that Insurance Law § 40-d does not create a private right of action for punitive damages, and such damages require a showing of morally culpable and wanton dishonesty beyond mere breach of contract or negligence. The court also found attorneys' fees were not recoverable. The lower court's order was modified to remove the option for Chock to replead the punitive damages counterclaim.

Punitive DamagesInsurance Law § 40-dBreach of ContractUnfair Claims PracticesPrivate Right of ActionAppellate ReviewCounterclaim DismissalFiduciary DutyNegligenceAttorneys' Fees
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roche v. Bruder

Petitioner Anthony J. Ferraro, president of the Westchester Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City of White Plains from compelling him to return to his assistant engineer duties. Ferraro had been dedicating his full time to union affairs since 1975 while receiving an engineer's salary, a practice he claimed was a condition of employment. The City ordered him back to work in 1978, prompting an improper practice charge with PERB and this injunction request. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no clear legal right to the relief, no demonstration of irreparable injury to the union members, and that a balancing of equities favored the City, which was suffering substantial monetary loss by paying a full salary for no engineering services.

Union PresidentPreliminary InjunctionPublic EmploymentCollective BargainingIrreparable HarmTaylor ActPERBImproper Practice ChargeStatus QuoEquitable Relief
References
6
Case No. ADJ8981638
Regular
Jan 19, 2019

ANTHONY INGRASSI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his left shoulder, lumbar spine, right hip, and left elbow. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing the $36\%$ permanent disability award should only be paid over 173 weeks and that the Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) increase was unwarranted. The Appeals Board amended the award to reflect 173 weeks for the permanent disability and affirmed the $4658(d)(2)$ increase, finding the defendant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for return-to-work offers after the applicant's medical condition became permanent and stationary, despite the applicant's brief return to work. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the $4658(d)(2)$ increase should not apply as the defendant's failure to issue a second notice was form over substance given the applicant was already working full duty.

Labor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Permanent Disability AwardApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent Impairment RatingsNotice of Offer of Regular WorkDWC-AD 10118Substantial ComplianceReturn to Work Incentives
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hawes v. Dime Savings Bank

Claimant, a security guard for Dime Savings Bank, was injured on duty in October 1983 due to a slip and fall and tear gas exposure, resulting in a permanent partial disability. He began receiving reduced earning compensation benefits. In August 1984, after informing the Bank he was ready to return, he was fired, leading him to file a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. A WCLJ found the Bank violated § 120 but denied damages, stating his disability meant he couldn't return to work. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this. The Appellate Division found the Board's determination on damages unsupported by law or evidence, noting the claimant's ability to return to work was disputed. The court affirmed the finding of a § 120 violation but reversed the no-damages ruling, remitting for a new hearing on claimant's ability to perform his former duties.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargePermanent Partial DisabilityReduced Earning BenefitsDiscriminationEmployer ViolationDamagesAppealRemittalMedical Disability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 96 Civ. 4126
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM) and Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) sued New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd. (NCCFE) and Endeavor Academy for copyright infringement of 'A Course in Miracles.' The central issue was whether the work entered the public domain due to extensive pre-publication distribution without copyright notice. The court found that hundreds of uncopyrighted copies were distributed without sufficient limitations on who received them or how they could be used. Consequently, the court concluded that the work was generally published before its official copyright registration, rendering the copyright invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, dismissing the copyright.

Copyright LawPublic DomainPre-publication DistributionCopyright InfringementIntellectual PropertyReligious TextsSpiritual TeachingsManuscript DistributionLiterary WorkLicensing Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Broomfield v. Roosevelt Hotel Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the employer’s request for full Board review. The employer had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings regarding a discrimination complaint filed by the claimant, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) to find discrimination. The employer’s subsequent untimely appeal to a Board panel was denied for lack of good cause. The employer then sought full Board review, which was also denied. The court affirmed the denial of full Board review, finding no abuse of discretion by the Board panel, as their decision was unanimous and based on a full consideration of the matter.

DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation BoardUntimely AppealFull Board ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsFailure to AppearJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2001

Claim of Walby v. Volt Information Science

Claimant, injured at work in 1996 and undergoing surgery in 1998, returned to full-time work before being laid off in June 1998 due to a plant closure. Despite partial disability from her back injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for reduced earnings, attributing the wage loss solely to economic conditions. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no evidence that her physical limitations prevented her full-time return to her previous occupation or contributed to her unsuccessful job search after the layoff.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsPartial DisabilityEconomic LayoffCausation of Wage LossJob SearchTreating Physician LimitationsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationBack Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ10887310
Regular
Jan 30, 2023

OSCAR MARTINEZ vs. SECURITA AMERICA, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

The applicant, Oscar Martinez, was injured on May 3, 2017, resulting in a 3% permanent disability. He returned to his regular job duties with his employer, Securita America, Inc., but was laid off approximately five months later due to his employer's contract ending. While Martinez subsequently worked for a new employer at the same location and performing similar duties, the Board found that this did not satisfy the requirement of returning to the "same job for the same employer" for at least 12 months. Therefore, the Appeals Board amended the prior finding, ruling that Martinez is entitled to a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherpermanent partial disabilityemployer's dutyregular work offermodified work offeralternative work offer12-month durationRule 10133.31(c)substantial evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,143 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