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
Mar 22, 1971

Claim of Pollak v. Robert Day, Inc.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded disability benefits to a waiter under the Disability Benefits Law, finding him to be a 'shape-up worker' concurrently employed by Creative Caterers, Inc. and Robert Day, Inc. The claimant fell ill in February 1970 and was hospitalized, having worked for both employers in the same calendar week. Appellants challenged the board's finding of concurrent employment, citing the claimant's sporadic work record and arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that concurrent employment and eligibility are questions of fact solely within the board's province, and its conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence. The court clarified that regular employment by the *same* employers within the same calendar week is not necessary; only regular and customary employment by more than one covered employer within the same week is required.

disability benefitsconcurrent employmentshape-up workerWorkmen's Compensation LawArticle 9substantial evidencequestion of factapportionmentemployer liabilityappellate review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hart v. Pageprint/Dekalb

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed a late payment penalty on an employer's carrier. The claimant, suffering from permanent partial disability due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, entered into a waiver agreement with the carrier for $35,200. Although the Board approved the agreement without a hearing, the carrier paid the claimant 20 days after approval, exceeding the 10-day limit, leading to a $7,040 penalty. The appellate court found the streamlined procedures used for approval invalid because they conflicted with 12 NYCRR 300.36, meaning the agreement was never properly approved and thus the 10-day limitations period for payment never commenced. Consequently, the penalty imposition was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for a proper hearing on the agreement.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Late Payment PenaltyWaiver AgreementBoard ApprovalStreamlined ProceduresAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardOccupational Disease
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1989

Richardson v. Hetelekides

The Workers' Compensation Board imposed a 20% penalty on Insurance Company of North America, the carrier for employer Savos Hetelekides, for late payment of a $1,125 award to the claimant. The carrier argued that the 10-day payment period for compensation awards should commence upon its receipt of the notice of award, not the filing date. However, both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed the penalty, stating that no extra time is allowed for mailing and the period begins from the notice's filing date. The employer and carrier appealed this determination to the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that the 10-day period for payment of a compensation award commences on the date of filing of the notice of award.

Workers' CompensationPenalty for Late PaymentLate Payment of Award10-Day Payment PeriodNotice of AwardFiling Date vs. Receipt DateAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedInsurance Carrier LiabilityEmployer Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. Lufthansa German Airlines

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 4, 1977. Plaintiff sued Lufthansa German Airlines and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers for breach of an employment contract and sought reinstatement. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of Lufthansa's notice to extend plaintiff's probationary employment, which the Trial Term deemed untimely by applying General Construction Law § 20 to the contract's 10-day notice period. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the notice, issued on November 11, 1975, was one day late based on the calculation method. A dissenting opinion argued against the application of § 20, asserting it inappropriately curtails employer rights in probationary contracts.

Contract interpretationProbationary employmentTerminationTimeliness of noticeGeneral Construction LawAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployment lawUnion agreementSeniority status
References
6
Case No. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. ADJ7270261
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

MEKAL FARUKI vs. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES

This case involves Mekal Faruki's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely. Labor Code section 5903 establishes a strict 20-day deadline for filing reconsideration petitions, with a possible 5-day extension for mailing. Critically, the petition is considered filed upon receipt, not mailing date. Faruki's petition was filed over 25 days after the December 10, 2010 decision, rendering it jurisdictionally barred.

Mekal FarukiMacy's Department StoresPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSacramento District Office
References
6
Case No. ADJ7623993
Regular
Jun 10, 2011

JOLYN MATTHEWS vs. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT

This case involves Farmers Insurance Group and Helmsman Management's untimely Petition for Removal, filed 25 days after an order taking the case off calendar for further discovery. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it exceeded the 20-day filing deadline, without the benefit of extra days for mail service. Even if timely, the Board noted it would have been denied on the merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The petition requested reversal of the WCJ's order to allow for trial before assessing medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceUntimely PetitionWCAB Rule 10843(a)Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013(a)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

Claim of Ceccato v. Outokumpu American Brass

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed July 21, 2009, which ruled that the claimant's application for review of a WCLJ decision was untimely. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991, later complicated by consequential depressive disorder. A WCLJ issued a decision on March 10, 2009, awarding benefits. The claimant's subsequent application for review was filed 42 days later, exceeding the 30-day statutory limit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. Despite the claimant's assertion of a misunderstanding regarding business versus calendar days for the deadline, the court affirmed the Board's exercise of broad discretion in denying the untimely application.

Workers' CompensationAppealUntimely ApplicationStatutory DeadlineBoard DiscretionPermanent Partial DisabilityDepressive DisorderWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,670 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