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

Durakovic v. Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund

Bejaze Durakovic sued 'the Funds' under ERISA after being denied disability benefits, citing chronic back and neck pain from a 1999 car accident. The Social Security Administration had found her disabled in 2004. The Funds, relying on independent medical examiners Dr. Ludmilla Bronfin and Dr. Ira Rashbaum, and a vocational assessment by Apex Rehab Management, concluded she could perform sedentary work. Durakovic challenged this, arguing inadequate vocational assessment and conflict of interest. The court granted the Funds' motion for summary judgment, finding their decision was not arbitrary or capricious, despite some misgivings about the vocational assessment, emphasizing the broad discretion accorded to plan administrators.

ERISADisability Benefits DenialSummary Judgment GrantedArbitrary and Capricious ReviewConflict of InterestVocational CapacitySedentary EmploymentIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician RuleSocial Security Disability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP v. Frankel

This case involves petitioners challenging a ruling that their backup power equipment is assessable as real property and contesting tax assessments on that equipment. The petitioners argued that the equipment should not be considered real property under Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12) (f) because it falls under an exception for movable machinery or equipment. They also contended that the equipment should be exempt as telecommunications equipment and that assessments were void due to lack of timely notice. The court modified the lower court's decision, declaring that the backup power equipment is assessable as real property and that the assessments are not nullities for lack of notice.

real propertytax assessmentbackup power equipmentpower generating apparatusmovable machinerytelecommunications equipmentRPTLstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, consisting of group self-insured trusts (GSITs), initiated a proceeding to challenge assessments levied by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (former [f]). They argued that the statute was inapplicable to GSITs and that the Board failed to meet statutory prerequisites for the assessments. The Supreme Court annulled the assessments on the grounds that the Board failed to satisfy prerequisites, although it deemed the statute applicable to GSITs. Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court’s finding that the statute was applicable. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, determining that petitioners were not aggrieved by the judgment as they had received the relief sought—the annulment of the assessments. The court also clarified that collateral estoppel would not apply to the interpretation of the statute, which is a pure question of law, and that the discovery issue was academic.

Group Self-Insured TrustsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAssessmentsAnnulmentAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Declaratory Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Herman Bradford, appealed the chancellor's award of 35% permanent partial disability following a back injury sustained on the job. Bradford, a 55-year-old illiterate ink mixer, underwent spinal fusion surgery. Medical and vocational experts assessed his impairment between 19% anatomically and 100% vocationally. The Supreme Court found the trial court erred by giving undue weight to Bradford's post-injury return to work in its disability assessment. Considering his age, limited education, medical restrictions, and non-transferable job skills, the Court increased his permanent partial disability award to 50% to the body as a whole.

Permanent Partial DisabilityVocational DisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyVocational Expert TestimonyImpairment RatingSpinal FusionLifting InjuryReturn to WorkEarning CapacityAge Factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc.

Donald Ray Bailey, a 47-year-old truck driver, sustained a lumbar strain in April 1990 while working for Colonial Freight Systems, Inc. He underwent treatment from multiple doctors, including Dr. George Stevens, Dr. William Kevin Bailey, and Dr. William Kennedy, who all assessed various levels of permanent partial disability and work restrictions. Vocational experts, Dr. Norman Hankins and Dr. Eric Engum, presented conflicting assessments of his vocational disability. The trial court awarded Bailey 65 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and commuted it to a lump sum. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the disability award but reversed the lump-sum commutation, finding insufficient evidence to support the lump sum for housing or debt payment, suggesting it should be limited to rehabilitation purposes. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLump Sum AwardVocational DisabilityMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionRehabilitationLumbar StrainDegenerative Disc Disease
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Story v. Legion Insurance Co.

The plaintiff, a 28-year-old nurse, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and overuse syndrome in both hands due to her work at Chester County Nursing Home, where she spent significant time entering care plan data into a computer. Despite not missing work, she experienced severe pain, weakness, and a 75% decrease in strength, impacting her daily life and ability to perform previous nursing roles. The trial court found she suffered a 35% permanent partial disability to each arm, attributing it to her employment. The defendant appealed, arguing the injury was not compensable due to no missed work, and challenging the weight given to medical testimony and the assessment of vocational disability. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's judgment, clarifying that missing work is not a prerequisite for a compensable injury in repetitive stress cases and upholding the trial court's discretion in weighing medical testimony and assessing vocational disability.

worker's compensationpermanent partial disabilitycarpal tunnel syndromeoveruse syndromevocational disabilityrepetitive stress injurymedical evidenceanatomical impairmentappellate reviewTennessee Supreme Court
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cedeno v. Pacoa

The Workers' Compensation Board assessed a $500 monetary penalty against claimant's counsel for an unsubstantiated request to change the hearing venue from Queens/Nassau to White Plains, Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially assessed $250. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support for the assessment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The court ruled that the Board had authority to increase the penalty and overlooked a procedural defect regarding who filed the appeal, treating it as filed by counsel.

Workers' CompensationVenue ChangeCounsel FeesMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural MotionUnpreserved ArgumentSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Authority
References
5
Case No. ADJ2262922 (SRO 0041418)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

DEBBIE LEVINE vs. STARBUCKS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a permanent disability rating of 42%, arguing the vocational expert's assessment of diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) was rebutted and that Labor Code section 4662 should apply for total disability. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the applicant failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the DFEC, as she never sought employment and her vocational expert's opinion was largely attributed to economic factors. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for applying Labor Code section 4662, as the applicant's alleged permanent total disability was not supported by persuasive medical or vocational evidence. The applicant's unsupported claim of zero earning capacity was contradicted by medical opinions.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 PDRSOgilvie IOgilvie IIrebuttalLabor Code section 4662permanent total disabilityvocational expertsubstantial evidenceAME
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,906 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