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

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1980

Bass v. Westchester Concrete, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which was initially filed on March 14, 1980, and later amended on September 17, 1980. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15(8), claiming a known prior physical impairment of bilateral deafness in the claimant. The record established that the claimant's total disability stemmed from a severe psychoneurotic disorder, with a pre-existing psychiatric condition materially and substantially exacerbating the present disability due to a compensable accident. However, the appeal found no substantial evidence that the employer had prior knowledge of this psychiatric condition; only the bilateral deafness was known, which was deemed incidental to the current disability. Consequently, the Board's decision, which presumably denied reimbursement, was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPrior Physical ImpairmentBilateral DeafnessPsychoneurotic DisorderPre-existing ConditionEmployer KnowledgeTotal DisabilityCompensable Accident
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1983

Claim of McNeil v. Geary

The claimant, a groom, injured her left knee in 1979 and was initially found temporarily totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board later reclassified her injury as a 15% permanent partial disability of the left leg, dating from the time of injury, and increased her benefits based on wage expectancy due to her being under 25. The employer appealed, arguing that wage expectancy benefits should not apply to the period of temporary total disability and that the record didn't substantiate a permanent partial disability ab initio. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that reclassification is a factual determination within the Board's sole province and was based on substantial evidence, and that the Board has continuing jurisdictional power to modify findings.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage ExpectancyWorkers' Compensation LawInjury ReclassificationBoard JurisdictionSubstantial EvidenceLeft Knee InjuryGroomRiding AcademyTemporary Total Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1977

O'Reilly v. Raymond Concrete Piling, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board initially discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability, attributing the claimant's disability solely to a 1969 accident based on Dr. Williams' testimony. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the majority, finding support in the record. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, citing a lack of substantial evidence to prove the disability was not materially and substantially greater due to both a 1957 injury and the 1969 accident, and noted the absence of findings regarding the employer's knowledge of the claimant's permanent physical impairment from the 1957 injury. The dissent also referenced prior similar cases.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundPermanent Physical ImpairmentSubsequent DisabilityMaterially and Substantially GreaterEmployer KnowledgeMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionDissenting Opinion
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02346 [182 AD3d 890]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2020

Matter of Schiffer v. Charming Shoppes of Del.

Claimant Sheila Schiffer suffered two work-related back injuries in 2000 and 2007, leading to a permanent partial disability. The employer, Charming Shoppes of Delaware, and its workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The Workers' Compensation Board discharged the Fund, determining the carrier failed to provide sufficient and timely evidence and that a prior stipulation was legally non-binding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier failed to establish both that the claimant's preexisting impairment hindered her general employability and that her permanent disability was materially and substantially greater due to both injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimsPreexisting ImpairmentPermanent Partial DisabilityMaterially and Substantially GreaterGeneral EmployabilityTimeliness of EvidenceStipulation EnforceabilityEstoppel
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsyth v. Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office

The claimant, a lifeguard, sustained head and shoulder injuries in an automobile accident while working for the Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office. His workers' compensation benefits were calculated based on concurrent employment, including seasonal work for the City of New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the finding of concurrent employment, a decision which was subsequently appealed by the employer and its carrier. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of concurrent employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 [6], given the claimant's long history of working for both employers during the same periods.

concurrent employmentaverage weekly wageworkers' compensationlifeguard injuryseasonal employmentappellate reviewNew York labor law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1980

Claim of Butts v. Ward La France Trucking Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board found claimant’s disability to be 45% attributable to a March 1976 work accident, 10% to an August 1977 nonrelated accident, and 45% to a November 1977 work accident. The employer's carrier for the second work accident appealed the 45% apportionment. The court found no substantial evidence to support the Board's apportionment, citing testimonies from Dr. Burke, who attributed 90% of disability to the first work accident, and Dr. Corradini, who believed the first accident's disability ended by January 1977 and the current disability was primarily from the nonrelated accident. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Disability ApportionmentWork-Related InjuryNon-Related InjuryMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionRemittal for Further ProceedingsInsurance Carrier Dispute
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,814 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