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. 2018 NY Slip Op 04944 [162 AD3d 1777]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Matter of Town of Tonawanda (Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Assn.)

This case involves an arbitration matter between the Town of Tonawanda, as Respondent, and the Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Association, as Appellants. The Appellants' motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The decision was rendered on June 29, 2018.

ArbitrationMotion to appealLeave to appealDenialAppellate practiceLabor lawPublic employmentCollective bargainingFourth DepartmentCourt of Appeals (denied)
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03576 [239 AD3d 752]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2025

Matter of Royal v. Royal

The case "Matter of Royal v Royal" involves an appeal by Albert Royal (father) against Mireille M. Royal (mother) regarding his retroactive child and spousal support obligations. The parties, married in 2014 with two children, separated in June 2018. In July 2018, the mother sought support. Subsequently, the father suffered significant injuries from a work accident and two motor vehicle accidents in late 2018 and 2019, rendering him unable to continue as a construction worker and leading him to receive public assistance after exhausting unemployment benefits. The Support Magistrate and Family Court used the father's 2018 income tax return to determine his support obligations for the period from July 2018 through December 2019, amounting to $48,200.22. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the 2018 income tax return did not accurately reflect the father's actual income during the period from November 2018 through December 2019 due to his injuries and inability to work. The matter was remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a recalculation of the father's income and, if appropriate, his retroactive support obligations for the specified period.

Family LawChild SupportSpousal SupportImputed IncomeRetroactive SupportIncome RecalculationParental Financial ObligationPersonal InjuryUnemployment BenefitsPublic Assistance
References
3
Case No. ADJ11146153
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

MARIA CUNNINGHAM vs. RAMCO ENTERPRISES, LP

The WCAB granted reconsideration, affirming temporary disability for the applicant from April 7, 2018, to August 30, 2018. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that the applicant was estopped from receiving benefits due to refusing modified work, as the offer was only for the 2017 season and no offer existed for 2018. While agreeing the defendant's delays estopped them from challenging temporary disability, the Board limited this to the period until the applicant could be examined by a newly authorized treating physician. The issue of temporary disability after August 30, 2018, was deferred pending further medical reports.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityModified WorkEstoppelQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianSeasonal HarvesterBerry IndustryIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ11184438
Regular
Oct 02, 2019

Ricardo Villanueva vs. Golden Labor Services, LLC, Security National Insurance Company

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's denial of temporary disability benefits from February 1, 2018, to January 9, 2019, for a left shoulder injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming denial of benefits from June 5, 2018, due to refusal of modified work but deferring the issue of benefits from February 1, 2018, to June 4, 2018. This deferral is due to the WCJ's inability to locate critical medical reports, which appear to have been physically filed but not properly scanned into the electronic system through no fault of the applicant. Further proceedings are required to properly rescan and consider these exhibits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityModified WorkLabor Code Section 4658.1Electronic Adjudication FileTreating Physician ReportsAmended Petition for PenaltiesSeparate Time-StampDocument Separator SheetScanned Exhibits
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04938
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of Leduc v. Northeastern Clinton CSD

Claimant Donna Leduc, a custodian, sustained a right shoulder injury in February 2018 while pushing a stuck trash gondola in snow and ice. She sought treatment in June 2018, was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff, and reported the injury to her supervisor in July 2018, filing a claim in August 2018. The self-insured employer controverted the claim, arguing untimeliness under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. However, a WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board excused the late notice, finding no prejudice to the employer's ability to investigate. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in excusing the untimely notice.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeShoulder InjuryRotator CuffEmployer PrejudiceAppellate ReviewCustodial WorkGondola AccidentAccident InvestigationWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
9
Case No. 533488
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Portia Blanch

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant, Portia Blanch, a flight attendant, sustained a head injury at work. Her claim was established for a work-related head injury, and she received temporary total indemnity benefits. She sought to amend her claim to include consequential postconcussion syndrome with associated headaches and anxiety, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed, finding no causal relation. The WCLJ also found she voluntarily removed herself from the labor market after July 6, 2018, thus suffering no compensable lost time from July 7, 2018. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision regarding the causal nexus and the voluntary removal from the labor market, deferring to the Board's credibility assessments, especially regarding the medical opinions of Dr. Bragg. However, the Appellate Division modified the Board's decision, ruling that the finding of no labor market attachment should apply from July 13, 2020 (when evidence was submitted) rather than July 6, 2018, thereby reversing the rescission of indemnity benefits for the period July 7, 2018, through July 12, 2020, and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPostconcussion SyndromeLabor Market AttachmentCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndemnity BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility DeterminationNeurological Injury
References
19
Case No. ADJ11844639
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

REINA HERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior grant of reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely, as it was filed after the jurisdictional deadline. The arbitrator's decision was issued on October 15, 2018, making the filing deadline November 9, 2018. Since the petition was filed on November 14, 2018, it was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for reconsiderationuntimelyjurisdictionalvacatedismissLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.arbitratorservicemail
References
4
Case No. ADJ8332660
Regular
Feb 28, 2019

CELEDONIO RAMIREZ vs. MANO PALLETS, INC.; IMPERIUM, adjusted by ATHENS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely, as it was filed on December 3, 2018, beyond the November 13, 2018 deadline for seeking removal of the WCJ's October 19, 2018 Findings and Order. The WCAB emphasized that filing with the Board, not just mailing, is required to meet the deadline. Furthermore, even if timely, the petition would likely have been denied due to a lack of demonstrated prejudice.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingDismissalWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Findings and OrderService by MailTime ExtensionProof of FilingSubstantial Prejudice
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 462 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