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
May 06, 2002

Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1990

Waldeck v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A New York Supreme Court panel reversed a lower court's decision that had granted a deferred retirement allowance to a Department of Sanitation employee, Barbaro. Barbaro, a member of NYCERS since 1969, sought a deferred retirement allowance in July 1989, with an intended retirement date of August 18, 1989. However, he was dismissed on August 17, 1989, for soliciting unlawful payments. The appellate court determined that his dismissal occurred prior to his intended retirement date, thereby rendering him ineligible for the vested retirement allowance under Administrative Code § 13-173.1. The court clarified that the effective date of discharge was when the Commissioner signed the termination letter, irrespective of the date for commencing an appeal.

Retirement AllowancePublic EmployeeDismissalVestingAdministrative LawCivil ServiceNew York CityDepartment of SanitationAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Grant

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clohesy v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Claimant, a utility company employee, filed three workers’ compensation claims between 1979 and 1997 for back/neck injuries and asbestosis. He resigned in December 1999, which the employer contended was a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the retirement voluntary. Claimant appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division found the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, noting the claimant had legitimate medical ailments interfering with his duties, and the Board unduly emphasized the lack of explicit medical advice to retire. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary withdrawal from labor marketWorkers' Compensation benefitsPermanent partial disabilityAsbestosis diagnosisMotor vehicle accident claimsMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate reviewRemittalDisability contributing to retirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp.

Claimant, aged 62, sustained a work-related back injury in February 1999, prompting his retirement the following day and the commencement of social security retirement benefits. Although he had planned to work part-time until age 65, he did not seek any employment post-injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to seek alternative work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, despite being deemed permanently partially disabled. The employer and carrier's contention regarding the untimeliness of the appeal was rejected. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' CompensationAppeal timelinessMedical evidenceConflicting evidenceSocial security benefitsRetirementBack injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

Claim of Amicola v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, an employee of New York Telephone, sustained a low back injury in December 1992 and underwent disc repair surgery. After returning to light duty, he experienced increased back pain, and despite his physician's direction to stop working, he applied for an early retirement incentive program in May 1994, which was granted the following month. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market due to his early retirement. The Court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support that the claimant elected to retire, influenced by a significant financial incentive, despite his injury. The decision emphasized that the availability of workers' compensation benefits would not cease with retirement, further supporting the voluntary nature of his withdrawal.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementDisabilityBack InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFinancial Incentive
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The court addressed two consolidated CPLR Article 78 proceedings concerning whether petitioners' dismissal from the Department of Sanitation was effective prior to the vesting of their deferred retirement allowances. Petitioners, Waldeck and Barbaro, applied for the allowance, which vests if an employee is not dismissed within 30 days of application. Respondents, the Department of Sanitation and New York City Employees’ Retirement System, contended that petitioners were dismissed before the vesting date. The court found discrepancies in the dismissal documentation, a lack of explanation from a key witness (Commissioner Sexton), and insufficient proof that the dismissal notices were properly served according to Civil Service Law § 76. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissals were not effective by the critical date, entitling petitioners to their vested retirement allowances.

Deferred Retirement AllowanceAdministrative DismissalCPLR Article 78Vested RightsDue ProcessService of NoticeCivil Service LawPublic EmployeesDepartment of SanitationNew York City Employees’ Retirement System
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cravotta v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a New York City sanitation worker, sustained a knee injury after allegedly slipping on a sanitation truck step contaminated by a slippery substance from a dump site. His application for accidental disability retirement benefits from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) was denied, as his injury was not deemed an "accident" under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b. The petitioner challenged this determination, but both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The courts found that the injury occurred during routine duties and was not so extraordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury.

Accidental disabilityRetirement benefitsSanitation workerKnee injurySlipping accidentRoutine dutiesNYCERSAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAnnulment petition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leary v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Dorothy Leary, a part-time junior public health nurse for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, injured her left knee after slipping on stairs due to wet shoes from snow outside. Her application for disability retirement benefits was denied by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, following a recommendation from the Medical Board that her injuries were not sustained as an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605. Leary challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court initially denied. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granted Leary's petition, annulled the Board's determination, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that her fall constituted an accident.

Workers' CompensationDisability RetirementPublic Health NurseSlip and Fall InjuryAccident DefinitionCPLR Article 78Medical Board ReviewAppellate ReversalRetirement and Social Security LawKings County Supreme Court
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 957 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