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

Charles v. Broad Street Development, LLC

The plaintiff, a security guard, sustained personal injuries after falling into an elevator shaft at a building owned and managed by Broad Street Development, LLC, and 61 Broadway Owner, LLC. The elevator was maintained by Schindler Elevator Corp. After a jury initially found for the defendants, ruling the plaintiff a 'special employee' of the building defendants, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. On reargument, the court determined, as a matter of law, that no special employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the building defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict against the building defendants was granted, and the case was remitted for a new trial against them. However, the verdict in favor of Schindler Elevator Corp. was affirmed.

personal injuryelevator accidentspecial employee doctrineworkers' compensationCPLR 4404(a)liabilityjury verdictreargumentnegligencepremises liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1993

Claim of Garrison v. Craftech Industries, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, as amended, which found his application for review untimely. The claimant argued that the Board abused its discretion by not exercising its continuing jurisdiction to consider the late application, despite not disputing the untimeliness. The court disagreed, citing a delay of over three months and the lack of an adequate explanation for the untimeliness. Given the Board’s broad discretion, the court affirmed its decision.

Workers' CompensationAppealUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionContinuing JurisdictionAffirmed DecisionProcedural IssueAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ9910760
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

RAFAEL GUZMAN RODRIGUEZ vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION AND RECYCLING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed its prior decision allowing the applicant to audio record a qualified medical evaluation with Dr. Dizay. The Board exercised its broad discretion to guide discovery, amending the initial administrative law judge's order which had prohibited recording. This decision aligns with the WCAB's authority to review and modify WCJ decisions based on the existing record and judicial discretion.

Petition for ReconsiderationAudio RecordingQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel QMEWCAB DiscretionLabor Code Section 5708Code of Civil ProcedureWCJ DecisionReconsideration ProceedingsJudicial Discretion
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00195 [179 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Seales v. Eastern Concrete Cutting Corp.

Kevan Seales filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The claim was established, and a lump-sum award of $189,790.16 was stipulated. Claimant's counsel, Geoffrey Schotter, applied for a fee of $28,500, which was reduced to $20,000 by the Workers' Compensation Board. Schotter appealed this reduction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board has broad discretion in approving counsel fees and did not abuse its discretion by reducing the fee, as it considered all appropriate factors.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesOccupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseLump-Sum AwardBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesRepetitive Strain InjuryJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grasso v. Brewster Central School District

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding counsel fees. Initially, the claimant received benefits and attorney fees for a right arm injury. Subsequently, the claim was amended to include a left shoulder injury, leading to further benefits and additional counsel fees. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded $6,500 in counsel fees for the left shoulder claim, which the Board affirmed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing its broad discretion in approving counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion given that services were rendered and the claim was settled by stipulation without extensive litigation.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesSchedule Loss of UseJudicial DiscretionAppealAffirmationStipulationLegal FeesAttorney FeesBoard Discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2005

Claim of Bell v. Genesee Inn

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning the counsel fees awarded to their attorney. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded $2,750 in fees following a stipulated settlement, which the Board subsequently affirmed. The claimant contested the adequacy of the fee award and challenged the constitutionality of Workers’ Compensation Law § 24. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing the broad discretion vested in the Board regarding counsel fees and finding no abuse of discretion. The court also reiterated that the constitutional challenge to Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 had been previously resolved by the Court of Appeals.

counsel feesWorkers’ Compensation Law § 24Board discretionconstitutional challengeappellate reviewattorney feesstipulated settlementschedule loss of useWorkers' Compensation Board decisionabuse of discretion
References
3
Case No. CV-22-1926
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Golisano

Claimant Jason R. Golisano filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 alleging work-related injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury in September 2021. The employer and its carrier filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board on November 3, 2021, which was denied as untimely because it was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The carrier appealed, contending the Board should have exercised its discretion to accept the late application, citing a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWCLJ Decision30-Day LimitJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural IssueCOVID-19 Impact
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03167
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Razzano v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

James Razzano, a correction officer, suffered a left shoulder injury and was paid full wages by his employer during his absence. After a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his claim and awarded counsel fees, Razzano received a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. He contended that the initial counsel fee was improperly deducted from this SLU award. The Workers' Compensation Board, exercising its continuing jurisdiction, determined that the employer was entitled to full reimbursement of advanced wages without reduction for counsel fees and directed that the counsel fees be paid from Razzano's SLU award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the Board's rational reasoning and broad discretion in determining how counsel fees are paid.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseCounsel FeesEmployer ReimbursementAdvanced WagesContinuing JurisdictionAppellate DivisionWages Paid During DisabilityLien on CompensationBoard Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gavigan v. State

Claimant, an employee of Horizon Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., sustained serious personal injuries in April 1989 while working on a State-owned property. He sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the State, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 due to an improperly constructed and maintained rampway. The Court of Claims initially denied two motions but subsequently granted a third, finding sufficient factors under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to support its decision, including the merit of the claim and timely notice to a State employee. The State appealed this decision, arguing an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Court of Claims' order, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its broad discretion.

Late Notice of ClaimState LiabilityOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryCourt of Claims ActLabor Law ViolationsRampway SafetyEmployee InjuryAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Claim of Salatti v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The claimant, a data entry clerk, sustained work-related injuries to their left wrist. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded lost wage benefits and directed employer reimbursement on May 2, 2003. The employer's carrier appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the reimbursement order on August 5, 2003. Subsequently, the claimant's attorney challenged the reimbursement direction, but the WCLJ, in a June 8, 2005 decision, declined to address it due to untimeliness, as the issue was not raised in the initial appeal. The Board denied full review of this issue. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion regarding the timeliness of review applications under Workers' Compensation Law § 23, and finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the claimant's request untimely.

Workers' CompensationUntimely AppealEmployer ReimbursementBoard DiscretionLost Wage BenefitsWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewSection 23
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,320 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