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

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. DiNapoli

The case concerns a petitioner seeking to excuse the notice requirement for a disability retirement claim. The petitioner argued that either a workers' compensation claim or a 'good cause' exception should apply. The court found that the workers' compensation claim was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the Workers’ Compensation Board’s subsequent decision to excuse its untimeliness was not binding on the respondent. Regarding the good cause exception, the petitioner failed to notify the employer of the injury or disability within 30 days of the occurrence, as required by regulation, instead waiting a year. The court upheld the respondent's interpretation that the notice event is the occurrence of the disability, not its diagnosis. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the respondent’s denial of the good cause exception, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementGood Cause ExceptionTimelinessEmployer NotificationOccupational DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRetirement and Social Security Law
References
5
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. SFO 0485703
En Banc
Jun 21, 2006

ELIZABETH ALDI vs. CARR, McCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Appeals Board held that the revised permanent disability rating schedule, effective January 1, 2005, applies to injuries occurring before that date unless one of the statutory exceptions in Labor Code section 4660(d) is established. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if any exceptions apply.

En Banc DecisionPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code Section 4660SB 899Prospective ApplicationExceptionsMedical-Legal ReportTreating Physician ReportSection 4061 NoticeCumulative Trauma Injury
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ3346033
Regular
Apr 06, 2009

NANCY SWYERS vs. TENET/DMC OF MODESTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior award that applied the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Board ruled that the 2005 PDRS must be used for applicant's December 6, 2004 injury because no pre-2005 medical report indicated permanent disability, and no other statutory exception applied. The plain language of Labor Code section 4660 mandates the 2005 PDRS unless specific exceptions are met. The case was returned to the trial level for proceedings and a new decision utilizing the 2005 PDRS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code Section 46601997 PDRS2005 PDRSComprehensive Medical-Legal ReportTreating Physician ReportNotice Under Section 4061Senate Bill 899Aldiv. Carr McClellan
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. New York State & Local Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent Comptroller's denial of his application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial was predicated on the petitioner's failure to furnish the written notice stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The petitioner's reliance on an exception for workers' compensation notice, even with oral notice and the employer's actual knowledge, was deemed insufficient. The court reaffirmed that a Workers’ Compensation Board's decision to excuse late notice does not bind the Comptroller for disability retirement purposes. Consequently, as no applicable statutory exceptions were met, the Comptroller's determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPerformance of DutyNotice RequirementsWorkers' Compensation LawRetirement and Social Security LawComptroller DeterminationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawTimely NoticeStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,747 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