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

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1982

Claim of Sammaritano v. Attractive Fashions, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claim for benefits where the primary dispute was the workers’ compensation insurance carrier's contention of proper cancellation of its policy. The referee denied the carrier's adjournment request and found insufficient proof of proper cancellation, a decision affirmed and reaffirmed by the Board. The appellate court reviewed whether the Board's refusal to restore the case to the calendar was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion, noting the carrier had ample opportunities to present its case and was unprepared despite the issue being raised early. The Board's decisions were affirmed.

Insurance CoveragePolicy CancellationAdjournment DenialAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousEvidentiary IssuesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationCarrier ResponsibilityCoverage Dispute
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ford v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a public relations director, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 1994 due to work-related posttraumatic stress disorder, but later withdrew the claim in March 1997 due to a parallel federal civil rights action, leading to its closure without a decision on merits. In March 2003, claimant sought to reopen the case, which the Workers' Compensation Board denied in February 2004, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 123 as a bar. The Board subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review in July 2004, prompting the claimant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no new evidence was presented for reconsideration and that the Board had properly determined the claim was truly closed and time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as over seven years had lapsed since the accident. Consequently, the appellate decision concluded that the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialTime-Barred ClaimPosttraumatic Stress DisorderFederal Civil Rights ActionJurisdictionReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1979

Kowalczyk v. Brooklyn Terminal Stores

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on May 1, 1979. The decision denied the claimant’s request for reconsideration of an earlier Board decision, dated June 22, 1978. The prior decision had reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s ruling from June 23, 1977, which had directed the Aggregate Trust Fund to provide additional dependency benefits to the claimant for a period between 1961 and 1965. The court found that the request for reconsideration lacked valid reasons and that the evidence supporting the Board’s original decision was not contradicted. Consequently, the denial of reconsideration was deemed justified and not arbitrary or capricious, leading to the affirmation of the decision.

Reconsideration DenialDependency BenefitsWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision AffirmationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardEvidentiary Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2008

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) challenged a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision prohibiting it from transporting high school students in Rochester, New York. The FTA asserted RGRTA's proposed "Express Service" violated federal statute 49 U.S.C. § 5323(f) by competing with private bus operators. The court found the FTA's October 12, 2007, decision, which rejected RGRTA's Express Service proposal, to be arbitrary and capricious. The judge ruled that the FTA improperly relied on RGRTA's subjective intent rather than objective criteria in its regulations for "tripper service" and that its interpretation contradicted its own prior rulings. Consequently, the court set aside the FTA's decision and extended a stay to allow RGRTA to implement its proposed service.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFederal Transit AdministrationSchool Bus TransportationTripper ServiceUnfair CompetitionRegulatory InterpretationAgency DiscretionStatutory ConstructionPublic Transportation
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Benware v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a self-insured employer was responsible for $300 in attorney expenses for a claimant's injury sustained in an automobile accident. The employer contested a $150 reimbursement portion, arguing it was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence, as the attorney conceded only one trip to Albany was made, not two, and there was no proof the $150 expense for local counsel was incurred. The court agreed, finding the board's determination regarding the $150 for securing local counsel unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Attorney FeesExpense ReimbursementTravel ExpensesAdministrative Law Judge DecisionsAppellate Court ReviewEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious RulingCase RemittalWorkers' Compensation ClaimsLegal Representation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Earnest v. J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd.

The claimant, a secretary for an interior design company, alleged a back injury in March 2003 while lifting a box. The initial claim was disallowed by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in January 2006. The claimant's application for reconsideration or full Board review was denied in a decision filed August 1, 2006. The current appeal solely challenges the denial of reconsideration, not the merits of the original claim. The court affirmed the Board's denial, concluding it was neither arbitrary nor capricious, as no new evidence had been presented.

AppealReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewNon-Compensable InjuryAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate DivisionBack Injury ClaimNo New Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCorkle-Spaulding v. Lowe's

The claimant suffered a work-related left foot injury in February 2008 and received workers' compensation benefits. In March 2009, the claimant filed a C-3 form, alleging a causally related injury to her right foot from the same incident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the right foot claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which subsequently denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The claimant appealed both Board decisions; however, the appeal from the underlying decision was not timely perfected. Consequently, the appellate court limited its review to whether the Board’s denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious. Finding that the claimant offered no new evidence previously unavailable, the court concluded that the Board's denial was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed the decisions.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityFoot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionReconsideration DenialTimelinessAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Russo v. M & M Transportation

The claimant, employed by M & M Transportation, sustained back and knee injuries in 1976. The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging various preexisting conditions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). However, the carrier failed to produce medical proof to support its claim of preexisting conditions, even after being directed to do so by the Hearing Officer. Consequently, the Hearing Officer discharged the Special Fund, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to provide clarifying medical proof and finding the Board's denial of reconsideration was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court emphasized that the existence of a previous disability must be established before addressing the employer's knowledge of such a condition.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Medical ConditionMedical EvidenceCarrier ObligationsBoard DiscretionDenial of ReconsiderationAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 23,090 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