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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. 535513
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mehwish Shakil

Claimant Mehwish Shakil, a mass transit customer service agent, sought workers' compensation benefits for PTSD after a traumatic incident at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ), a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the employer filed a timely notice of controversy and that the incident did not qualify as a compensable accident. Claimant appealed, arguing that the WCLJ erred in allowing the employer to controvert the claim and that her PTSD claim should be established. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to address claimant's arguments regarding the employer's initial acceptance of liability and its subsequent controversion, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPTSDMental InjuryTimely Notice of ControversyCompensable AccidentAdministrative AppealRemittalAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. CV-24-1581
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of John Foster

Claimant John Foster was injured in May 2020, and the carrier accepted liability for his facial injuries. In 2023, Foster sought treatment for new conditions, including a traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, which he linked to the original accident. The carrier argued the claim for these new conditions was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28, but the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding that initial medical records provided sufficient notice of a claim within the two-year period, documenting symptoms like lightheadedness and head pain immediately after the accident. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the two-year limitation does not preclude amending a timely claim to include consequential injuries.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-concussion SyndromeConsequential InjuriesMedical RecordsNotice RequirementsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 535748, 533778, 536208, CV-22-2049
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Puccio

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, sustained a paraplegic injury after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which was initially accepted by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) with liability. SIF later controverted the claim, alleging Puccio was a partner, not an employee, and thus excluded from coverage. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of an employer-employee relationship and concluding Puccio was a profit-sharing partner/owner. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination regarding Puccio's status and upholding the denial of claimant's applications for reconsideration and rehearing, despite SIF's non-compliance with a procedural deadline.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensation benefitsprofit-sharing agreementpartnership statusinsurance coverage disputeState Insurance FundBoard discretionsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewrehearing application
References
8
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. 535866
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Eleucadio Gallardo

Claimant Eleucadio Gallardo appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his application for review due to non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b). Gallardo sustained right leg injuries in September 2020 and filed a claim, with Charles J Kling Enterprises LLC and its carrier accepting liability as the employer. After a WCLJ established the claim and awarded benefits, Gallardo sought Board review, arguing Kling Enterprises was incorrectly named and submitting new evidence. The Board denied review, citing Gallardo's failure to object during the hearing and non-compliance with submission requirements for new evidence, specifically the lack of a sworn affidavit. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as Gallardo failed to interpose an objection to the WCLJ's ruling and did not provide the required sworn affidavit for additional evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board ReviewAdministrative AppealFailure to ObjectNew Evidence Submission12 NYCRR 300.13Procedural ComplianceAppellate Division AffirmationEmployer IdentificationCarrier LiabilityWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jennel Collins

Claimant Jennel Collins appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision that found the employer, New York City Transit Authority, timely filed a notice of controversy. Collins sustained injuries at work and filed a claim for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the employer failed to timely controvert, waiving defenses and establishing the claim. However, the WCB modified this, ruling that the 25-day period for controverting under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) was not triggered because the case was not indexed, making the employer's subsequent controversion timely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings because the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the binding nature of the employer's initial injury reports indicating acceptance of liability, and if subsequent actions violated Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) or 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c).

Workers' CompensationNotice of ControversyTimelinessWaiver of DefensesBoard IndexingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployer Liability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 17,862 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