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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2002

Johnson v. Shelmar Corp.

Claimant suffered work-related injuries in 1993, leading to a settlement approved on September 12, 2001, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 32. The settlement funds were mailed on September 24, 2001. Claimant sought a 20% penalty, arguing the payment was late according to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) and 12 NYCRR 300.36 (g), as it exceeded the 10-day period post-approval. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this penalty. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, applying General Construction Law § 25-a (1), which extends deadlines falling on a Saturday to the next business day, thus making the September 24th payment timely. The court also noted that the Board could have exercised discretion to waive the deadline due to the operational disruptions caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Late Payment PenaltyWorkers' Compensation SettlementStatutory Deadline ExtensionGeneral Construction LawRule DiscretionSeptember 11 Attacks ImpactTimeliness of PaymentAdministrative HearingWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
2
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. ADJ3134805 (BAK 0148440)
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

VELGRACE SMITH vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

This case concerns a defendant seeking reconsideration of a decision that awarded a 15% increase in permanent disability indemnity payments. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the employer failed to offer modified work within 60 days of the applicant's condition becoming permanent and stationary, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ's literal interpretation of the statute would lead to absurd consequences given the retroactive nature of medical findings and delayed service of reports. The Board held the 60-day period begins when the employer has knowledge of both the permanent and stationary status and work restrictions, and remanded the case to determine if the employer's modified work offer remained consistent with updated restrictions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityModified WorkLabor Code Section 4658(d)AggravationCumulative InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary DateWork Restrictions
References
3
Case No. ADJ3292033 (LBO0369559) ADJ4279112 (LBO0369560)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

NORMA BARAJAS vs. DISNEYLAND RESORT, DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES

The defendant seeks reconsideration of a permanent disability award, arguing the 15% increase under Labor Code § 4658(d)(2) should only apply to payments made after 60 days from the applicant's permanent and stationary date. The applicant contends the increase applies to the entire award except for the first 60 days' payments due to the employer's untimely offer of modified work. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify the application of the 15% increase. The Board noted that prompt permanent disability advances by the employer might exclude those payments from the § 4658(d)(2) calculation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisneyland ResortLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent disability awardpermanent and stationaryAgreed Medical Examinerstreating physicianoffer of modified workpetition for reconsiderationFindings and Award
References
1
Case No. ADJ2502147 (VNO 0410195) ADJ2639661 (VNO 0410199)
Regular
May 22, 2009

KAREN STRINGER vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's claim for credit for temporary disability payments made between January 12, 2004, and June 14, 2004. The Board found that the 60-day deadline for acting on the petition was tolled due to administrative oversight. Importantly, the Board determined that the Workers' Compensation Judge must re-evaluate the credit issue, considering that the temporary disability payments during that period appeared medically justified and aligned with the purpose of encouraging prompt benefit payments. Consequently, the prior decision was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityCreditOverpaymentLabor Code 4909Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Defense QMEIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garden State Anesthesia Associates, PA v. Progressive Casualty Insurance

Garden State Anesthesia Associates (GSAA) sued Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for unpaid first-party no-fault benefits after providing services to Angela Gowan-Walker. Progressive delayed payment, citing the need for Gowan-Walker's examination under oath (EUO) and extensive medical and workers' compensation records. Although Gowan-Walker completed her EUO, Progressive continued to issue delay letters, requesting information primarily from third parties and Gowan-Walker's attorney, without directly contacting GSAA for verification. The court denied Progressive's motion for summary judgment, ruling that an insurer cannot indefinitely toll the 30-day payment period by requesting verification unrelated to the specific provider's claim or by failing to request verification directly from the provider.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentInsurance LawVerification RequestDelay LetterEUOMedical RecordsInsurance ClaimsTimelinessTolling
References
9
Case No. ADJ3423900 (ANA 0320773)
Regular
Sep 16, 2009

Donna Smith vs. Neiman Marcus, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its decision regarding Donna Smith's claim against Neiman Marcus and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Although applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed, it was not brought to the Board's attention within the statutory 60-day period due to administrative oversight. The Board, applying due process principles and citing relevant case law, determined that the 60-day review period begins when the Board has actual notice of the petition. Therefore, the untimely review of the petition led to its denial on the merits, upholding the WCJ's previous decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5909Due ProcessShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardFraudMisrepresentationMutual Mistake of Fact
References
2
Case No. ADJ9428267
Regular
Jul 07, 2018

JOHNNY CORTEZ vs. LES SCHWAB TIRE, INC.

The Appeals Board dismissed Johnny Cortez's untimely petition for reconsideration of a stipulated award, as it was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision. However, the Board granted reconsideration on its own motion within the statutory 60-day period. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the stipulations should be approved. This action was taken to address the applicant's claims regarding incorrect temporary disability payments and improper notification of PQME rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeStipulated AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityTimelinessJurisdictional Time LimitReconsideration on Own Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1974

Russell v. Dumpson

Petitioner (Mrs. Russell) initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a May 9, 1974 decision by the New York State Department of Social Services, which affirmed the denial of retroactive public assistance by the New York City Department of Social Services. The petitioner and her husband had taken two children, Harry and Kennedy Drayton, into their home based on assurances from a social services employee that assistance would be provided. Despite filing an application and making numerous inquiries, assistance for the period the children resided with them was denied, and only later partially granted for one child. The respondents denied retroactive assistance, citing regulations that assistance meets current needs and the petitioner's alleged failure to request a fair hearing within 60 days. The court found errors of law in the respondents' decision, ruling that the Department could not penalize the petitioners for its own inaction and that the 60-day period did not commence without written notification. Consequently, the court annulled the decision and directed respondents to issue a retroactive grant of assistance to the petitioner.

Public AssistanceRetroactive GrantArticle 78 ProceedingSocial Services LawFair HearingAdministrative ReviewDue ProcessAgency InactionChildren's WelfareState Regulations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,200 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