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
Feb 02, 1984

Krebbeks v. Regan

Petitioner, the widow of a Department of Transportation employee, applied for accidental death benefits after her husband's service-connected death in July 1981. Although her application for accidental death benefits was approved, these benefits were entirely offset by workers' compensation payments, leaving her with no current payments from the State Employees’ Retirement System. Subsequently, petitioner sought a lump-sum ordinary death benefit, which was denied because she was deemed eligible for accidental death benefits, even if offset. This appeal ensued after the denial of her application by a hearing officer and Special Term's concurrence. The court affirmed the denial, citing Retirement and Social Security Law § 60 (a) (3), which states an ordinary death benefit is not payable if an accidental death benefit is payable, with a narrow exception not applicable here.

Accidental Death BenefitsOrdinary Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation OffsetRetirement and Social Security LawStatutory InterpretationDeath Benefits EligibilityPublic Employee BenefitsAdministrative Law AppealDeath Benefit Offset
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marshall v. Savannah Sausage Corp.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing a claimant's application for death benefits as untimely and denying counsel fees. James Marshall, a marketing consultant, sustained serious injuries in a 1977 motor vehicle accident and later died in 1981. His widow, the claimant, filed a death claim in 1984, which was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently affirmed by the Board, as it was not filed within two years of Marshall's death. Additionally, the Board denied counsel fees, ruling that compensation benefits would not exceed the third-party settlement Marshall received, thus rendering further legal efforts futile. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the untimely filing of the death claim and concurring that no counsel fees lien was applicable.

Death BenefitsTimeliness of ClaimCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierDisability ClaimAppealLienWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ8503725
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

DAVID LEZCHUK (Deceased), MELISSA LEZCHUK, Guardian ad Litem for MADISON GRACE LEZCHUK, minor vs. CAL FIRE—DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's petition, upholding the finding that Madison Lezchuk, the minor dependent, is entitled to an additional death benefit of $53,000. This additional benefit is to be placed in a trust due to the applicant's spending habits and inability to manage funds, ensuring protection of Madison's future interests. The WCAB affirmed that the "good cause" exception under Labor Code section 4704 allows for such awards despite the applicant's receipt of a CALPERS Special Death Benefit.

CALPERSSpecial Death BenefitLabor Code section 4707Labor Code section 4704good causeminor dependentdeath benefitGuardian ad Litemindustrial injuryWCJ discretion
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamal v. Gohel

This case involves an appeal by the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to extinguish SIF's right to claim a credit or offset against Workers' Compensation death benefits and to compel reinstatement and retroactive payment of these benefits. The plaintiff had initially received death benefits from SIF after her husband's work-related death, and also won a jury award in a wrongful death action against a third party. SIF later asserted a right to a credit or offset against the death benefits for the jury award proceeds, suspending payments, which the plaintiff challenged. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that primary jurisdiction for determining the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law, particularly regarding an insurer's right to claim a credit or offset, rests with the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the Supreme Court.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance FundCredit or OffsetPrimary JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyStatutory RightsDeath Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 1996

In re the Claim of Thousand

The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant's application for death benefits, ruling that the decedent's death from metastatic lung cancer was not causally related to a work-related right shoulder injury sustained on January 10, 1986. While the claimant's medical expert opined that the shoulder injury hastened the death, experts for the self-insured employer and an impartial expert concluded there was no causal relationship. Given the conflicting medical testimony and the Board's broad discretion, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical TestimonyShoulder InjuryLung CancerDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConflicting EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
1
Case No. ADJ10147616
Regular
Nov 28, 2018

ERIC BRUNELL vs. GRAYHAWK AUTOGLASS, THE HARTFORD

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that found industrial injury to his ankle and spine but not his foot, resulting in 14% permanent disability. After reconsideration was granted, the applicant's attorney informed the Board of the applicant's death in January 2018, stating no accrued unpaid compensation was owed. Consequently, the Board vacated the reconsideration order and dismissed the applicant's petition as moot due to the death, but returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision noted the lack of a death certificate and uncertainty regarding the notification of the death without dependents unit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLeft AnkleLumbar SpinePermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPetition for ReconsiderationApplicant DeathMoot
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,790 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