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

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
0
Case No. ADJ358912 (GRO 0032620) ADJ1583814 (GRO 0032621)
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

ROSS COVELLO vs. CITY OF SANTA MARIA, Pecmissibly Self-Insured, GREGORY BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, Adjusting Agency

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the PWCJ's order setting the matter for trial was not a final order. The Board denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. Additionally, the petition for disqualification was denied due to the applicant's failure to provide the required affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. The applicant's contentions regarding discovery, notice defects, counsel conflicts, and bias were found insufficient to warrant reconsideration or removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDeclaration of ReadinessAgreed Medical ExaminerDiscovery ClosedMandatory Settlement ConferenceFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ18395672
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

FRANCISCO DE SANTIAGO CARRILLO vs. NEAL TRUCKING INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Defendant sought removal from an order taking this matter off calendar and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) for alleged bias. The Appeals Board considered the petitions and the WCJ's Report. The Board denied the petition for removal, finding that defendant failed to establish irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The petition for disqualification was also denied because defendant did not provide a supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, nor sufficient grounds for disqualification. The Board noted that the WCJ's actions, such as raising the issue of sanctions, appeared to be a reasonable response based on the case facts.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ DiscretionDeclaration of ReadinessIrreparable HarmReconsiderationJudicial BiasLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Affidavit/Declaration
References
13
Case No. ADJ11209389
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

CARLOTA FORBES vs. ESIS, INC.; ACE INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal and dismissed their Petition for Disqualification. The defendant sought removal due to alleged procedural errors and bias by the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) following a mandatory settlement conference. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. Furthermore, the Petition for Disqualification was dismissed for failing to meet procedural requirements, specifically the lack of a supporting affidavit under penalty of perjury detailing the grounds for disqualification. Even on the merits, the Board determined the defendant's claims of bias were based on subjective perceptions and did not meet the legal standard for disqualification.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DevineMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10452
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Mayo v. Rensselaer Polytech Institute

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to pay a penalty to a claimant under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 for failing to timely pay an award. The Special Fund appealed this decision, contending that the penalty provision applied only to employers or insurance carriers, not to them. The court, however, disagreed with the Special Fund's interpretation. Citing prior case law, the court held that the Special Fund, once liable for compensation benefits due to the passage of time, stands in the shoes of the carrier regarding the obligation to make timely payments. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision to impose the penalty, emphasizing the legislative policy for prompt compensation payments to injured workers.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyTimely PaymentStatutory InterpretationSpecial FundReopened CasesInsurance CarrierAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionLegislative Intent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banton v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after the claimant was injured. Counsel sought a change of venue, citing a purported "Board Rule 10.01 (1) (c)" which the Workers’ Compensation Board found to be non-existent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request and assessed penalties against counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) and (ii). On administrative appeal, the Board rescinded the penalty under § 114-a (3) (i) but increased the penalty under § 114-a (3) (ii) due to the appeal lacking reasonable basis. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that counsel had been previously warned about citing the inaccurate "Board Rule" and that clarification on venue application rules was available before the administrative appeal was filed.

Attorney MisconductVenue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative AppealSubstantial EvidenceLegal TreatiseProcedural MotionUnreasonable GroundsAppellate Review
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,265 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