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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04069 [195 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Quaranta v. Special Teams, Inc.

Vincent Quaranta, the appellant, had an established workers' compensation claim. His employer and carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly making material misrepresentations to obtain benefits, citing surveillance video footage. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no violation, the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Quaranta feigned the extent of his disability during a July 2017 independent medical examination by misrepresenting his need for a cane, thereby upholding the violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision to disqualify Quaranta from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of his conduct.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violationMaterial misrepresentationFraudulent claimsDisqualification from benefitsWage replacement benefitsSurveillance video evidenceIndependent medical examination (IME)Antalgic gaitUse of assistive devicesAppellate review
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00221 [201 AD3d 1140]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of New Team, LLC (Commissioner of Labor)

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board assessed New Team, LLC for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining an employment relationship with its brand ambassadors based on an audit from July 2010 to September 2013. New Team appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that New Team exercised sufficient supervision, direction, or control over the brand ambassadors to establish an employment relationship for unemployment insurance purposes. The decision highlighted factors such as New Team's recruitment, training, scheduling, event monitoring, and reporting requirements for brand ambassadors.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorBrand AmbassadorsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate Division Third DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceLabor Department AuditControl TestMarketing Services
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02965 [138 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Jardin v. A Very Special Place, Inc.

Jean-Paul Jardin, injured in a construction site fall from an unsecured ladder, sued A Very Special Place, Inc. (VSP) and Kang Suk Construction, Inc. under Labor Law § 240(1). VSP sought contractual indemnification from Kang Suk and Trinity Interior Coatings, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Jardin's summary judgment motion due to factual disputes regarding his site authorization. However, the court modified a prior order, granting VSP conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Kang Suk, finding VSP free from negligence. VSP's claim against Trinity was denied as their indemnification agreement was signed after the accident and lacked retroactive intent.

Construction Site AccidentLadder SafetyLabor Law ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementsRetroactive Contract ApplicationAppellate Division ReviewPersonal Injury Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

Stepheny v. Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children

Plaintiffs Maria and Gregory Stepheny, an interracial married couple, brought employment discrimination suits against their former employer, the Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children. Maria alleged a racially hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation, while Gregory claimed a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, citing violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Their termination in May 2001 followed a verbal and physical altercation with a co-worker, Nekeya Black, stemming from Gregory's prior extramarital affair with Black. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that any alleged harassment was due to personal animosity from the affair, not discrimination, and that the plaintiffs' termination was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to workplace misconduct. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the alleged harassment was not based on race or sex, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took reasonable remedial action. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of pretext in the termination decision.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2008

Claim of Clark v. Suny Upstate Medical Center

Claimant injured her back in 1994, leading to a closed case in 1997. Following further work-related injuries in 2001 and 2003, the 1994 claim was reopened in 2004 to address apportionment of liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases should assume liability for the 1994 claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, a decision which the Special Fund appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the statutory time limits for shifting liability to the Special Fund (more than seven years after injury and more than three years after last payment) were satisfied. The court rejected the Special Fund's contention that the employer's carrier voluntarily paid benefits for the 1994 claim, noting that the carrier had raised the issue of Special Fund liability.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability shiftingCase reopeningApportionmentStatutory time limitsVoluntary paymentsAppellate reviewBack injuryMedical opinion
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01635
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Committee

The Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust (the carrier) appealed an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc. The claimant, Licinio Marrero, sustained injuries and settled a personal injury action for $100,000 without obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee (SFCC), which is required when SFCC liability is established prior to settlement. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the carrier's request, believing it lacked discretion to compel such consent. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, clarifying that the Supreme Court does have the discretion to issue a nunc pro tunc order compelling consent if certain conditions are met: the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault, the settlement amount was reasonable, and the SFCC was not prejudiced. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundNunc Pro Tunc OrderSettlement ApprovalReimbursementPersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCarrier's WaiverConsent Requirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fuentes v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dated November 15, 2006. The Board had transferred liability for a claimant's 1998 work-related back injury to the Special Fund, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued that certain payments made to the claimant in late 2005, between November 30 and December 17, were advance payments of compensation, which would preclude the transfer of liability. However, the Board found that these payments were charged to the claimant's accumulated sick leave and did not constitute advance payments of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that the sick leave payments did not prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund because they were not made voluntarily in recognition of employer liability, and thus, the criteria for transferring liability to the Special Fund were met.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave PlanLiability TransferStale ClaimApplication to Reopen ClaimWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryTreating Physician Report
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,598 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