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

Bollella v. Schweiker

This case is an action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which denied the plaintiff's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff, a 52-year-old skilled sheet metal mechanic, suffered a lumbosacral injury and a psychiatric disorder. While an administrative law judge (ALJ) found severe impairment, it was concluded the plaintiff could perform semi-skilled sedentary jobs, thus not qualifying for disability benefits. The court, however, reversed the adverse determination, finding insufficient evidence regarding the transferability of the plaintiff's skills to other occupations, especially considering his age. The case was remanded for a rehearing to specifically address the transferability of the plaintiff's skills.

Disability benefitsSocial SecuritySkill transferabilityVocational expertAdministrative law judgeLumbosacral injuryPsychiatric disorderRemandSedentary workSemi-skilled occupations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local Union 638

Plaintiffs moved for class action certification against the defendant, Enterprise Association Steamfitters Local Union #638 of U.A., alleging racially discriminatory employment barriers in the steamfitting industry. The plaintiffs, including skilled steamfitters and those capable of learning the trade, claimed that the Union's apprenticeship program and membership requirements were discriminatory. The court found that the requisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were met. The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed as a class action, but the court defined two separate classes: one for skilled journeymen steamfitters and another for individuals capable of learning the skills.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationUnion PracticesApprenticeship ProgramsClass Action CertificationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSteamfitting IndustryMinority Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hurley v. Bowen

Plaintiff William J. Hurley brought this action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denying payment for skilled nursing facility care under Medicare Part A from October 2 to October 23, 1981. Hurley, who suffered a head injury, had his acute care benefits terminated by the hospital's Utilization Review Committee. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) twice denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council, on the grounds that he neither required nor received reimbursable skilled nursing facility care. The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. It noted medical advisor testimony that the care was not inherently complex or exclusively require a skilled nursing facility, and declined to apply the 'treating physician rule' to Dr. Goodman's ambiguous letter.

MedicareHealth InsuranceSkilled Nursing FacilityCustodial CareHospital InsuranceFederal BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilSubstantial EvidenceCerebrovascular Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thornton v. Heckler

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old individual with a heart condition and limited education, challenged the Secretary's denial of disability insurance benefits for a second time. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the plaintiff could perform his past work. Following a district court remand, the ALJ concluded the plaintiff could not return to his prior heavy and skilled work but could undertake semi-skilled sedentary work as an electrical inspector. The key dispute revolved around the transferability of skills under vocational guidelines, specifically whether the plaintiff, of advanced age, required 'very little' vocational adjustment as mandated by § 201.00(f). A vocational expert testified that the plaintiff would need more than minimal adjustment for training and psychological adaptation to a new industry and work setting. The court determined that the Secretary's decision lacked substantial evidence, particularly given the uncontradicted expert testimony. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating benefits due to the plaintiff.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActVocational ExpertSkill TransferabilitySedentary WorkAdministrative Law JudgeRemandSubstantial EvidenceVocational AdjustmentResidual Functional Capacity
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00210 [157 AD3d 1093]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Minefee (United Stas. Radio Networks, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns Delance Minefee's claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that United Stations Radio Networks, Inc. was liable for contributions, ruling that 'callers' were statutory employees under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a) as persons engaged in the performing arts. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The court found the Board's interpretation of the statute irrational, clarifying that the individual's services, not the overall artistic endeavor, must require artistic or technical skill. As the callers' services lacked such skill, the statutory presumption of employment was not met. The matter was remitted to the Board to assess whether a common-law employer-employee relationship existed.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipPerforming ArtsStatutory EmployeeLabor Law InterpretationAppellate DivisionReversed and RemittedRadio BroadcastingArtistic SkillTechnical Skill
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mtr. of Green (Republic Steel)

Richard Green, a bricklayer for Republic Steel Corporation, was laid off and subsequently refused an offer of lower-skilled, lower-paying laborer work, citing unsuitability. The Labor Department and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found him entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The employer challenged this, arguing that a collective bargaining agreement's 'Plant Waiver' clause should negate unemployment benefits if alternative work is refused. However, the court held that any agreement to waive unemployment rights is invalid under Labor Law § 595. The primary issue was whether Green had good cause to refuse the laborer position, which the court affirmed was supported by substantial evidence, considering his specialized skills, lack of prior experience as a laborer, and a significant wage differential.

Unemployment BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawSuitable EmploymentRefusal of WorkWaiver of RightsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWage DifferentialSeniority
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Colvin

Plaintiff Timothy Woods appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The District Court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) five-step disability determination process. The court identified two key errors in the ALJ's step five analysis: first, the ALJ incorrectly classified Plaintiff as a "younger individual" instead of considering him "a person closely approaching advanced age" despite his borderline age; and second, the finding that Plaintiff possessed transferable skills was not supported by substantial evidence, as the skills were deemed industry-specific and too vague. Due to these errors, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ ErrorTransferable SkillsAge CategoriesBorderline AgeRemandAdministrative LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureVocational Expert Testimony
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. New York City Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services

Plaintiff, Sergio de la Cruz, a Hispanic caseworker for the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York (HRA), initiated a Title VII and Section 1983 lawsuit, alleging anti-Hispanic discrimination. He claimed that criticism of his communication skills, a marginal performance rating, and a transfer to another unit without a loss of pay or benefits were discriminatory actions by his supervisor and the HRA. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no discrimination occurred. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, citing his inadequate writing skills for the position and the absence of an adverse employment action, as his salary and benefits remained unchanged. The transfer was also partly attributed to an agency-wide policy change. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1983Prima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionPretextPerformance Evaluation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. Apfel

Irving Schwartz brought an action against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of a denied claim for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Schwartz, a 64-year-old former restaurant manager, alleged disability due to monocular vision in his right eye. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found him not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court, presided over by Judge Nickerson, found that the Commissioner's decision lacked substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to properly apply the heightened standards for 'transferable' and 'highly marketable' skills required for claimants approaching retirement age (60-64 years old). The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a specific determination on skill marketability.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsMonocular VisionAge DiscriminationTransferable SkillsMarketable SkillsResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertRetirement Age
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Spinella

The claimant, who owned and operated a furniture upholstery business for 24 years, closed his business on October 28, 1988, due to a lack of skilled upholsterers and increasing unprofitability, despite efforts to find replacements. The local office initially disqualified him from unemployment insurance benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this determination, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, reinstating the disqualification. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant presented substantial evidence of a compelling reason to close his business, including operating losses in prior years and significant difficulty in hiring skilled workers, which impacted his ability to fulfill orders and meet with customers. The court held that a business does not need to be bankrupt to demonstrate compelling necessity. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Voluntary LeavingGood CauseUnemployment Insurance BenefitsBusiness ClosureSubstantial EvidenceCompelling ReasonUnprofitable BusinessSkilled Labor ShortageReversalRemittal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 106 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