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
Oct 30, 2014

Matter of Empara v. New Rochelle School District

The claimant, an electrician, sustained two work-related left leg injuries in 2003 and 2009. A 37.5% schedule loss of use was initially stipulated for the 2003 injury. After the 2009 injury, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits based on a 20% loss of use without considering the prior award. The employer appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's decision, finding no increased schedule loss of use greater than the previously awarded amount. The claimant then appealed the Board's decision, which was affirmed, upholding the timeliness of the employer's appeal and the Board's finding that there was no new or greater increase in the schedule loss of use related to the 2009 accident.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent ImpairmentMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewTimeliness of AppealBoard DecisionLeft Leg InjuryOrthopedic OpinionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adams v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

The Special Disability Fund appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from November 23, 1999, which had discharged the Fund from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). Initially, a WCB panel ruled that the employer’s carrier was entitled to reimbursement for a claimant's preexisting coronary artery disease. Although the Fund's appeal to this Court was dismissed for failure to prosecute, the full Board later rescinded the panel's decision, finding the carrier's reimbursement claim failed to specify coronary artery disease as a preexisting disability. This Court affirmed the full Board's decision, asserting the Board's plenary authority under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 to modify its decisions, even after an appeal dismissal. The Court emphasized strict adherence to claim form requirements, noting the carrier's form lacked specific mention of the coronary artery disease, thereby denying the reimbursement claim.

Special Disability FundWorkers' Compensation BoardReimbursementPreexisting DisabilityCoronary Artery DiseaseFailure to ProsecuteBoard AuthorityClaim Form ComplianceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1992

Claim of Lugo v. Hobart Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on January 17, 1992, concerning an employer's requirement to pay a penalty. The employer had appealed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, which found a compensable injury resulting in death and awarded death benefits. The Board panel initially denied the employer's application for review due to a perceived procedural error. However, upon full Board review, this denial was rescinded, and the case was referred for further consideration. Given these circumstances, the Board determined that a penalty should not be imposed for the employer's failure to pay the award within 10 days of the initial Board panel decision.

Workers' CompensationAppealPenaltyBoard ReviewProcedural ErrorDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityTimely PaymentAffirmationJudicial Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Broomfield v. Roosevelt Hotel Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the employer’s request for full Board review. The employer had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings regarding a discrimination complaint filed by the claimant, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) to find discrimination. The employer’s subsequent untimely appeal to a Board panel was denied for lack of good cause. The employer then sought full Board review, which was also denied. The court affirmed the denial of full Board review, finding no abuse of discretion by the Board panel, as their decision was unanimous and based on a full consideration of the matter.

DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation BoardUntimely AppealFull Board ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsFailure to AppearJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nasner v. C.T. Brickman & Associates, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision and an amended decision. The primary point of contention was the Special Funds Conservation Committee's alleged failure to notify the employer and carrier about its appeal to the Board. The court determined that this notice issue could not be raised on the current appeal because it was not addressed by the Board panel nor directly raised in the reconsideration request. Furthermore, the court upheld the Board's finding that the claimant's application to reopen the case was made within seven years of the accident, rendering Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a inapplicable and affirming the carrier's liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppealNotice RequirementsSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityReopening CaseStatute of LimitationsJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-a
References
4
Case No. G0699450
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2023

Matter of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

The claimant, Yvette Robles, sustained a work-related injury to her left knee. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established accident, notice, and causal relationship. However, the employer and carrier appealed, contending the claim was untimely filed. A Board Panel modified the WCLJ's decision, determining that the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28 due to untimely filing. The Full Board subsequently affirmed the Board Panel's decision, upholding the bar to the claim.

Timeliness of ClaimWCL § 28Board Panel ReviewAccident, Notice, and Causal RelationshipLeft Knee InjuryEmployer AppealFull Board ReviewClaim BarredStatute of LimitationsWork-Related Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Brauner

Claimant, a nurse, was terminated by Patchogue Nursing Center (PNC) for alleged insubordination and misconduct, including refusing to sign a warning and instigating a work stoppage. Initially disqualified for unemployment benefits by the Commissioner of Labor, an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) later found her entitled to benefits. However, an arbitration decision concluded that PNC had discharged the claimant for cause. PNC appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the Board should have applied collateral estoppel to the arbitration findings. The court agreed with PNC, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the case for further proceedings, holding that collateral estoppel should have been accorded to the arbitration decision's factual determinations.

unemployment insurance benefitsemployee misconductinsubordinationwork stoppagearbitration awardcollateral estoppeladministrative appeallabor disputeappellate court decisionlegal precedent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1971

In re the Claim of Farina

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which determined claimants were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimants lost their employment during a 1970 strike by the United Auto Workers against General Motors Corporation. The Appeal Board found that claimants' specific plants were not on strike and were separate 'establishments' within the statutory definition, thus their lack of employment was not a result of a strike, lockout, or industrial controversy *in their establishment* (Labor Law, § 592, subd. 1). The appellant (General Motors Corporation) contended that claimants' lack of employment was due to a strategic management decision and challenged an alleged illegal assignment of benefits. The court affirmed the Appeal Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, citing controlling authority, and rejecting the claim of illegal benefit assignment.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrike ImpactIndustrial ControversyEstablishment DefinitionLabor Law ApplicationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBenefit AssignmentGeneral Motors Strike
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 31,829 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