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

Riffo-Velozo v. Village of Scarsdale

The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from an extension ladder while installing a garage door at a building owned by the defendant Village of Scarsdale. The garage door unexpectedly lifted, causing the ladder to tip. The case involved claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety devices, finding that the unexpected lifting of the garage door was not a superseding cause. However, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 241 (6) because triable issues of fact existed regarding proximate cause and the plaintiff's potential comparative negligence in placing the ladder.

Elevation-related riskLadder fallGarage door installationLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary judgmentProximate causeComparative negligenceAbsolute liabilitySafety devices
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 1991

Danyi v. Board of Trustees

Petitioner, a sanitation worker, sought accidental disability benefits after injuring his left knee by tripping on a curb. The New York City Employees’ Retirement System denied his application. Petitioner argued that his injury was proximately caused by a broken curb and that tripping constituted an "unexpected event" regardless of the curb's condition. However, the court found that petitioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing a causal connection due to divergent accounts and insufficient evidence, including unauthenticated photographs and an undated co-worker statement submitted late. The court affirmed the denial, stating that a mere misstep in the ordinary course of employment is not the kind of sudden and unexpected event that warrants accidental disability benefits, and the respondent's determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Accidental Disability BenefitsSanitation Worker InjuryKnee InjuryMisstepCausationAdministrative ReviewArticle 78 PetitionNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemCourt Decision AffirmedDenial of Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A maintenance employee for the New York City Housing Authority sustained a right knee injury in March 1978 during a mugging and reinjured it in May 1979 while moving a refrigerator. His application for accident disability retirement was denied by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, whose medical board found no causal relationship between the 1978 incident and the disability, and no accident in 1979. Special Term initially vacated this determination, concluding the 1979 event was an accident. However, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's judgment, holding that an injury occurring without an unexpected event during ordinary employment duties does not constitute an accidental injury. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove an unexpected event, as his knee merely 'gave way' while moving a refrigerator, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Accident Disability RetirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemKnee InjuryPerformance of DutiesCausal RelationshipMedical Board OpinionCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAccidental Injury DefinitionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. McCall

Petitioner, an Orange County Department of Public Works mechanical equipment operator, injured his back and neck when a jackhammer he was using became stuck. He applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, which was denied on the grounds that his injury did not constitute an "accident" under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605 (b) (3). The court affirmed the denial, finding that operating a jackhammer and it becoming stuck was a common and anticipated part of his job, thus not an unexpected or out-of-the-ordinary event. Consequently, the determination to deny benefits was upheld.

Accidental Disability BenefitsRetirement and Social Security LawJackhammer InjuryOrdinary Course of EmploymentAnticipated EventCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationWorkers' Compensation DenialOrange County Public WorksBack and Neck Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dexter v. McCall

The petitioner, a food service worker at Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after falling due to tripping on a movable dish cart lid. The respondent denied the application, finding the incident was not an 'accident' within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63. The court affirmed this determination, concluding the fall resulted from the petitioner's misstep rather than a sudden, fortuitous, or unexpected event, as the petitioner was aware of the cart occasionally being left with its lid open. Consequently, the petition for review was dismissed.

Accidental Disability BenefitsFood Service WorkerWorkplace InjuryTrip and FallEmployee AwarenessMisstepRetirement and Social Security LawAdministrative DeterminationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
3
Case No. ADJ10248888
Regular
Jan 23, 2019

JUAN PAQUINI vs. SPRING HILL JERSEY CHEESE, INC., dba PETALUMA CREAMERY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that his vehicle accident was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, which would have allowed compensation for psychiatric injury despite less than six months of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged steering wheel lock was contradictory and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant failed to prove the incident was uncommon or unexpected beyond personal experience. Consequently, the original order was amended to explicitly state the injury did *not* fall under the sudden and extraordinary exception.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinarypsychiatric injuryless than six months employmentmotor vehicle accidentsteering wheel lockedcredibility determinationpreponderance of the evidencefactual inquiry
References
12
Case No. ADJ11425394
Regular
Sep 27, 2019

BOBBY BURTON vs. JINYA HOLDINGS, INC.; AMTRUST

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a denied workers' compensation claim for a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the administrative law judge's report. The decision hinges on Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires at least six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition. The applicant failed to meet the burden of proving their injury resulted from such an event, as defined by case law to mean something uncommon, unusual, and unexpected.

Labor Code 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix months employmentsudden and extraordinary employment conditionuncommonunusualunexpectedWCJ reportpetition for reconsiderationdenial
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant, was injured after a ladder collapse while installing a heavy bag. His subsequent application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied by the respondent, who adopted a Hearing Officer's finding that the incident did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. The Court annulled this determination, concluding that the installation work was not one of the petitioner’s ordinary and routine police duties, making the injury a sudden, unexpected mischance that constitutes an accident under the law. The matter was remitted to the respondent for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Accidental disabilityRetirement benefitsPolice sergeantLadder accidentEmployment dutiesUnforeseeable eventCPLR Article 78Administrative determinationAnnulmentRemittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Odierno v. Regan

Petitioner, a maintenance worker, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for a back injury sustained while installing an air conditioner. His application was denied on the grounds that the injury did not constitute an "accident" under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as it occurred during routine duties. The CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated to challenge this determination. The court confirmed the respondent's decision, noting a discrepancy between the petitioner's written account and oral testimony regarding the incident. The court found that the injury arose from regular duties and thus was not an unexpected "accident" within the meaning of the statute, dismissing the petition.

Accidental disability retirementCPLR article 78Maintenance workerBack injuryOrdinary course of dutiesUnexpected eventSubstantial evidenceCredibility disputeHearsay evidenceWorkers' compensation report
References
10
Case No. 66530
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. Fisher

The decedent, a potato picker, became ill at work and sought rest under a bus on the farm. The bus unexpectedly started, running him over and causing his death. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding the death causally related under Workers’ Compensation Law section 21, as the decedent was resting due to illness. The employer appealed, contending the decedent had abandoned his employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the determination of whether an activity is within the course of employment is a factual question for the Board, and its finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCourse of EmploymentPresumption of CausationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFatal AccidentFarm WorkerEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 47 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