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

In re the Claim of Wolfson

The claimant, a school teacher, appealed a December 3, 1975 decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's determination that he was ineligible for Special Unemployment Assistance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. Despite working only 10 months, the claimant was paid a 12-month salary, with payments for July and August 1975 deferred until December. He contended that these months did not constitute a paid vacation period under Labor Law § 591(3) because payment was delayed beyond 30 days. However, the court disagreed, citing precedent that teachers paid annually for 12 months are not considered totally unemployed during their non-working months, irrespective of the payment schedule. The court further held that Labor Law § 591 does not apply to situations where a claimant's salary is based on a 12-month period and paid for each of those months. Finding substantial evidence to support the board's determination, the court affirmed the decision.

Unemployment InsuranceSpecial Unemployment Assistance ProgramTotal UnemploymentSchool TeacherPaid VacationLabor Law § 59112-month SalaryBenefit EligibilityAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Cesarano, Haque & Khan, P. C.

Plaintiff sued an accounting firm for malpractice, alleging negligent advice regarding estate taxes which led her to pay $32,761. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214 [6]). The plaintiff's claim accrued on April 14, 1994, before the amendment to CPLR 214 (6) which shortened the limitation period from six to three years for such claims. While prior rulings allowed a six-year period if the suit was commenced before the amendment's effective date, the court found the plaintiff's filing on October 29, 1997, was untimely. The court determined that even with a reasonable grace period post-amendment, the plaintiff failed to file within the three-year limit or a reasonable six-month window after the amendment's effective date, thus granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Accountant MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimEstate Tax LiabilityMotion to DismissTimeliness of ActionRetroactive ApplicationDue Process Considerations
References
12
Case No. CV-23-2275
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffery DeBryne

Claimant Jeffery DeBryne, classified as permanently totally disabled due to work-related injuries, was alleged to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by providing an estimate for a home improvement project while wearing a company logo. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a § 114-a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty and a six-month discretionary disqualification. On appeal, the Board conceded the mandatory penalty's effective date should be April 6, 2022, not October 12, 2022. The primary issue for the Appellate Division was whether the Board abused its discretion by not imposing a permanent disqualification. The Court found the Board's reasoning, based on the absence of observed "actual work" by the claimant, to be cogent and upheld the six-month discretionary penalty, modifying only the effective date of the mandatory penalty and remitting for further proceedings.

FraudDisability BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aPermanent DisqualificationSurveillance ReportHome Improvement ProjectRemitted
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nicholas M.

This case concerns a petition filed by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) for a 12-month extension of placement for Nicholas, a hearing-impaired child adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent, who committed an act that would constitute endangering the welfare of a child. Nicholas, through his Law Guardian, opposed the extension, arguing that OCFS placement was not the least restrictive, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying effective treatment, and failed to provide necessary special education services. The court, presided over by Justice Michael L. Hanuszczak, found that OCFS placement remained the least restrictive alternative, balancing Nicholas's needs with community protection, and dismissed the ADA violation claim due to insufficient evidence. However, the court did find that Nicholas was not receiving mandated speech language therapy and a teacher of the deaf as outlined in his individualized education program (IEP). Consequently, the court granted the extension of placement with OCFS for 12 months, from July 20, 2001, to July 20, 2002, and ordered OCFS to conduct an evaluation regarding Nicholas's special education needs and submit an educational service plan.

Juvenile DelinquencyFoster CarePlacement ExtensionAmericans With Disabilities ActADASpecial EducationIndividualized Education ProgramIEPSexual Offender TreatmentLeast Restrictive Placement
References
4
Case No. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
Case No. ADJ9000676
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

MIGUEL VILLEGAS vs. ALL STAR SECURITY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involved a Petition for Reconsideration by All Star Security and its insurer, challenging a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning that the lien claimant failed to file within the amended 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board found that applying this shortened period was proper as the claimant had a reasonable time to file after the amendment's effective date. This decision aligns with prior WCAB panel decisions regarding the retroactive application of shortened limitations periods in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMiguel VillegasAll Star SecurityEverest National Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.WCJ reportKindelberger v. City of Los AngelesGuerrero v. Easy Staffing
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State of New York & Civil Service Employees Ass'n

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award, denying petitioner's application to vacate it. The arbitration involved David H. Jackson, a Youth Division Aide, who was disciplined for punching a juvenile and pushing a coworker, with a proposed penalty of termination. The arbitrator found Jackson guilty but imposed an eight-month suspension, anger management therapy, and a three-month probationary period instead of termination. Petitioner argued the reinstatement violated public policy concerning child protection, citing Executive Law § 501 (12) and Social Services Law § 412-a. The court affirmed, ruling that the public policy exception to arbitration awards is narrow and the cited laws did not absolutely prohibit the arbitrator's devised remedy or mandate termination, nor did the award explicitly violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionMisconductEmployee DisciplineYouth Division AideChild ProtectionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewVacatur of AwardAffirmation of Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perreras v. Cia De Nav Mar Netumar

Plaintiff Emanuel Perreras (later identified as Emilio Ferreras) sued an unnamed shipowner for injuries sustained as a longshoreman. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the claim was automatically assigned to the plaintiff's employer under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) because the plaintiff failed to initiate suit within six months of receiving a compensation award. The court confirmed that a claims examiner's memorandum constituted a valid award, triggering the six-month limitation period. However, the plaintiff argued that the claim was subsequently reassigned to him, providing a ratification letter from the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, the employer's workers' compensation carrier. Citing federal precedents, the court ruled that this ratification effectively revested the cause of action in the plaintiff, making him the real party in interest. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActLHWCAAssignment of ClaimReal Party in InterestRatificationMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(a)Workers' Compensation CarrierShipowner Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alston v. Transport Workers Union

Plaintiff sued a labor union for breach of its duty of fair representation between August 1986 and February 1987, alleging failure to properly represent him in disciplinary proceedings leading to his dismissal. The action was commenced on February 9, 1993. The central issue on appeal is whether the action is governed by CPLR 217 (2) (a), effective July 11, 1990, which shortened the statute of limitations to four months, or the previous six-year period. The court ruled that applying the four-month statute retroactively to a cause of action that accrued no later than February 27, 1987, would be unconstitutional, as it would immediately bar the claim without allowing a reasonable time to sue. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations applies, and the plaintiff's action was timely commenced. The court declined to follow the reasoning in Kleinmann v Bach regarding the applicability of CPLR 217 (2) (a) based on prior PERB charges.

Statute of LimitationsFair RepresentationLabor UnionBreach of DutyRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawDue ProcessCPLRCivil Service LawJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solo v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

Plaintiff Margot Solo filed an action in New York seeking damages against her former employer, Pan American World Airways, Inc., and her former union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Solo claimed she became disabled due to working in a smoky environment and was subsequently terminated by Pan American after the union failed to effectively process her grievance. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that the complaint implicitly alleged termination in violation of a collective bargaining agreement under The Railway Labor Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was time-barred based on the six-month statute of limitations established in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which borrowed from Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. The court applied this six-month limitation period, finding that Solo's claims against both the union and Pan American were time-barred as the action was commenced in May 1983, well after the claims accrued in March and July 1981. Therefore, the defendants' motions were granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Statute of LimitationsRailway Labor ActNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureTime-Barred ClaimsFederal Court JurisdictionSummary Judgment Motion
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,978 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