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. G107 435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2023

Matter of Marku v. ABM Industries

This case concerns the claim of Denise Perry under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) previously found that the employer, Adventist Home Care, established a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by the claimant for willfully making false statements to obtain benefits. Consequently, the WCLJ disallowed indemnity benefits and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. A Board Panel decision filed on February 17, 2022, affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The claimant subsequently filed an application for reconsideration on March 18, 2022, which the Board Panel reviewed. After considering the claimant’s arguments, the Board Panel determined that the application did not raise new issues or present new material evidence, nor did it demonstrate an erroneous statement of material fact or law in the prior decision. Therefore, the Board Panel, by a majority vote, affirmed its prior decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationIndemnity Benefits DisallowanceWCL § 114-a PenaltyApplication for Reconsideration DeniedBoard Panel AffirmationWillful MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionEmployer Established Violation
References
0
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. WCB No. G076 2707
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Matter of Duncan v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This Board Panel Decision concerns an appeal by the applicant, Joseph Lafayette, regarding a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) finding on the causal relationship of his back injury. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, neck, and shoulder during his employment. The WCLJ had previously established a causal relationship for the neck and shoulder injuries but disallowed the claim for the back injury. Upon review, the Board Panel determined that the medical evidence in the record supports a causal relationship between the claimant's employment and his lower back injury. As a result, the Panel modified the WCLJ's decision to establish a causal relationship for the back injury, while affirming the other aspects of the original decision.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidencePanel ReviewWCLJ DecisionModificationAppeal
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. C-4199
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Board of Education of Union-Endicott Central School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination that certified the Endicott Teachers' Association as the exclusive negotiating agent for former members of OTASN. The School Board argued that permitting a non-attorney to represent the Teachers' Association violated Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, and that PERB's director improperly made the decision instead of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing. The court agreed with the School Board on both points, finding PERB's rule allowing lay representation to contravene state law and the director's decision arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court annulled PERB's determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Additionally, a motion to dismiss by Kathleen Osiecki, president of OTASN, was granted as OTASN was not formally a party to the proceeding.

labour relationspublic employmentcollective bargainingjudicial reviewPERBnon-attorney representationdue processadministrative law judgeunion certificationarbitrary and capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Burns v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to injuries from an automobile accident. As an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, his claim was processed through a neutral outside arbitration process. An arbitrator established his claim and average weekly wage. Claimant appealed, arguing his average weekly wage should have been calculated differently due to a recent promotion, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2). An arbitration panel declined to address this argument because it was not raised before the arbitrator. The appellate court affirmed the panel's decision, citing that the panel could decline review of issues not previously raised, consistent with 12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii].

ArbitrationAverage Weekly WageWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationAdministrative LawProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1981

Claim of Schiffman v. Fugazy Continental Corp.

Claimant, a limousine driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury. Initially, a referee found an employer-employee relationship, but a board panel reversed this decision. Subsequently, the full 13-member Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the panel’s prior decision and referred the case back for reconsideration. The panel then found an employment relationship, aligning with other similar cases involving the same employer. The employer and its insurance carrier challenged the board's action, but the court affirmed the decision, asserting the board's plenary authority to modify or rescind prior decisions to resolve inconsistencies.

Employer-Employee RelationshipBoard ReviewPlenary AuthorityInconsistent FindingsAppellate ReviewLimousine DriverInjury ClaimBoard DecisionRescissionJudicial Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cerminaro v. Board of Regents

The case concerns a petitioner, a licensed registered nurse, who challenged the revocation of her license due to professional misconduct, including sexual contact with a patient and co-workers. Initially, a hearing panel found her guilty based on a "substantial legal evidence" standard. However, during the process, the Education Law was amended to require a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. While the initial panel failed to apply the stricter standard, the Regents Review Committee and the Board of Regents applied the correct standard during their review and affirmed the findings of guilt, recommending license revocation. The court confirmed this determination, finding sufficient evidence to support the decision and concluding that the procedural error was remedied by the subsequent reviews.

professional misconductnurse licenselicense revocationstandard of proofpreponderance of evidencesubstantial legal evidenceEducation Law violationsBoard of Regents decisionsexual misconduct chargesadministrative appeal
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00900 [213 AD3d 1096]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Gomez v. Board of Mgrs. of Cipriani

Alberto Gomez, the claimant, sustained work-related injuries in 2017 and sought payment for medical treatment from a New Jersey-licensed physician who was also licensed in New York but not authorized by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier objected to the payment, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the denial, ruling that the carrier was not liable. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decisions, holding that claimants injured in New York but residing in other states are entitled to treatment from qualified physicians in their home state, even without Board authorization. The court found the Board's interpretation of 12 NYCRR 323.1 to be irrational and unreasonable, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentOut-of-State PhysicianBoard AuthorizationStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewClaimant's RightsRegulatory InterpretationNew Jersey PhysicianNew York Licensing
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Compton v. Kenlu Cab Co.

The case involves a claimant, a taxicab driver, who sustained injuries and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Her employer was uninsured, so the Uninsured Employers’ Fund made some payments. The Fund later sought review of the awards, alleging they were excessive. A Board Panel modified the payment schedule, and the claimant's subsequent request for a full Board review was denied. The claimant appealed this denial to the court. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, ruling that a full Board review is not a matter of right for unanimous panel decisions under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, and the Board's action was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Workers' CompensationBoard ReviewAppealDisability BenefitsUninsured EmployerUninsured Employers' FundInterlocutory OrderJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardAbuse of Discretion
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 22,780 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