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
Jul 07, 2008

Koebel v. ew York State Comptroller

Petitioner, Rose J.E., sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from her observation and subsequent emergency duties related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied her application, citing a failure to provide timely written notice as mandated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 (c). The Supreme Court dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition, a decision that was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the petitioner's arguments that the widely-known events of 9/11, oral notice, her mental state as good cause, or an executive order suspending time limitations, satisfied or excused the notice requirement. The court found that the statute specifically requires notice of the member's injuries and incapacity, which the events of 9/11 alone would not convey. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the arguments regarding oral notice or the applicability of good cause exceptions or the Executive Order to extend the notice period.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder9/11 Terrorist AttacksTimely Written NoticeRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Good Cause ExceptionExecutive OrderWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ4141364 (MON 0148578) ADJ1953565 (MON 0155282) ADJ773621 (MON 0199028)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

Deborah Gross (Butler) vs. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS; CIGA through its servicing facility, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, for FREMONT for INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY, in liquidation, The Boeing Company c/o AIG Claims Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings on three industrial injuries to her neck, shoulder, and back. The Board dismissed "The Boeing Company's" petition for reconsideration because it was unverified and because Boeing was not currently a party aggrieved by an award. The applicant's arguments regarding simultaneous permanency, disability reduction, and the application of medical opinions were rejected. The Board adopted the judge's report and reasoning in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMcDonnell DouglasCIGAFremont Industrial IndemnityDeborah GrossPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaBenson v. WCAB
References
2
Case No. VNO 400995
Regular
Aug 30, 2007

ANA HERRERA vs. DIANE And JOE GUZMAN, DBA HITCHING POST FEED AND PET SUPPLY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding their arguments about the applicant's medical expert's reporting unsubstantiated. However, the Board granted the applicant's petition, rescinding the previous award. This action was taken because the applicant was denied due process by the concurrent service of the decision and the Disability Evaluator's report, which prevented her from cross-examining the rater. The case is returned for further proceedings and a new decision.

AOE/COEPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerMedical ReportingSubstantial EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationDisability EvaluatorDue ProcessCross-examination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. ADJ2829880 (VNO 0460797)
Regular
Feb 01, 2010

, Applicant, LEW RORICK, vs. PREFERRED PLUMBING, INC.; PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as it was not filed against a final order, which is a prerequisite for reconsideration under Labor Code Section 5900. Additionally, the Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The applicant's request to take the claim off calendar was based on a newly discovered heart attack potentially related to industrial hypertension, but the Board found these arguments insufficient to justify removal. Therefore, both the dismissal of reconsideration and the denial of removal stand.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff CalendarIndustrial HypertensionHeart AttackMedical EvidenceCausationNew InjuryAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Goffredo v. City of New York

The petitioner sought to serve a late notice of claim after developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to exposure at the World Trade Center site between 2001 and 2002. The Supreme Court initially denied the application based on a technical affidavit defect and later denied a renewed application as untimely, citing the expiration of the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the claim accrued in December 2001 when symptoms manifested, not in February 2003 with the formal diagnosis. The majority rejected the argument that the renewed motion should relate back to the original or that the court's delay in decision-making warranted a different outcome. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, asserting the initial application was timely, the technical defect minor, and the court's delay and invitation to renew should compel consideration on the merits.

Late Notice of ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorld Trade Center ExposureChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAccrual DateProcedural DefectsMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionGeneral Municipal Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hampton v. Neptune Meter Co.

A claimant, whose initial death benefits ceased upon a void second marriage, sought reinstatement of those benefits after discovering the marriage's invalidity. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled her application untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting the significant time lapse since the last benefit payment and the original husband's death. The court distinguished the case from precedent, emphasizing the absence of a timely application to reopen the matter within statutory limitations. Arguments regarding mistake were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDeath BenefitsVoid MarriageStatute of LimitationsReinstatement of BenefitsLump Sum PaymentAppellate DivisionJurisdictionTimeliness of Claim
References
3
Case No. ADJ8714414
Regular
Feb 20, 2018

ALLEN LEAVELL vs. HOUSTON ROCKETS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY/FAIRMONT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, TULSA FAST BREAKERS, COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA

The applicant, Allen Leavell, sought reconsideration of a prior decision denying California's workers' compensation jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding insufficient California-based injury exposure. Applicant's argument that his California games were qualitatively more traumatic was unsupported by medical evidence. The Board affirmed that playing approximately 11% of games in California is insufficient to establish constitutional due process for jurisdiction under the precedent set in *Federal Insurance Co. v. WCAB (Johnson)*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryLabor Code Section 3600.5Constitutional Due ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)De MinimisInjurious Exposure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1987

Perna Carting Corp. v. Private Sanitation Union

The petitioner appealed an order that granted their application to stay arbitration only partially, specifically concerning disputes arising after December 1, 1984. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the respondent Union had never represented the majority of the bargaining unit, thereby invalidating their collective bargaining agreements. However, the court unanimously affirmed the prior decision, finding this argument without merit. It emphasized the presumption of continuing validity for such agreements and distinguished the petitioner's cited case law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner's evidence was insufficient to prove the Union represented only a minority of workers.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationUnion RepresentationContract ValidityPresumption of ValidityLabor LawAppellate DecisionSupreme CourtNew York
References
3
Case No. ADJ2653629 (LAO 0826099)
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

, Applicant, vs. HERITAGE PRINTING AND FINISHING CORP.; CHARTIS,

This case concerns the application of the 1997 or 2005 permanent disability rating schedule for a 2003 injury. The applicant's psychiatric permanent disability was found to exist as of November 1, 2004, based on a comprehensive medical-legal report. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to use the 1997 schedule, as the pre-2005 report triggered an exception under Labor Code section 4660(d). The defendant's arguments regarding the report's qualifications and separate rating for body parts were rejected.

Permanent disability rating scheduleLabor Code section 4660(d)1997 rating schedule2005 rating scheduleComprehensive medical-legal reportTreating physician reportAldi v. CarrMcClellanIngersollThompson & Horn
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14,374 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