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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 532851
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria Fierro-Switzer (William Switzer, Dec'd)

Claimant Maria Fierro-Switzer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her claim for death benefits. Her deceased spouse, William Switzer, a retired New York City firefighter, volunteered at Ground Zero after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and later died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant alleged that his death was caused by toxic exposure during his volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding that Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which covers volunteers in World Trade Center rescue efforts, requires the participant to file a WTC-12 registration form during their lifetime. As the decedent did not file this form, the claim under Article 8-A was denied. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that despite the independence of a death benefits claim from the decedent's potential compensation claim, there must be a legal basis for the claim and an entity upon which liability may be imposed. Since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, no claim could lie under Workers' Compensation Law § 16, which requires injuries to arise out of and in the course of employment. The decedent's sole potential avenue for recovery would have been under Article 8-A, which was precluded by the failure to file the required WTC-12 form during his lifetime.

World Trade Center9/11 AttacksGround ZeroVolunteer BenefitsDeath Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-AWTC-12 Registration FormToxic ExposureRenal Cell CarcinomaAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. CV-23-2137
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Davenport

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the timely filing of a claim. Claimant Charles Davenport, who had prior workers' compensation claims, sustained a low back injury in February 2020 while shoveling snow for his employer, Oxford Central School District. A physician's assistant (PA) filed a medical report detailing the injury and attributing it to the snow shoveling incident, which was filed in connection with an earlier 2008 claim. The employer contested the claim, arguing it was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28 due to the claimant's failure to file a C-3 form. The Board found that the PA's medical report constituted a timely filing, providing sufficient notice of a claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a C-3 form is not the sole means of timely filing and that other documents, such as medical reports, can satisfy the notice requirement if they convey an intent to claim compensation, a determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTimely FilingMedical ReportPhysician's AssistantExacerbationSnow Shoveling InjuryLumbar Degenerative Disc DiseaseC-3 formNotice of ClaimSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. CV-24-0555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Wiley Sutphin

This case involves an appeal by UPS and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation (LM) from a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision. The WCB had denied LM's application for Board review concerning the apportionment of liability among three separate workers' compensation claims filed by Wiley Sutphin. The denial was based on LM's failure to file a separate copy of the RB-89 form for each claim, as advised by WCB Subject No. 046-1106R. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the WCB's decision. The court found that the WCB's directive regarding separate filings was not explicitly stated on the RB-89 form, in its instructions, or in the Board's regulations (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [3]), thereby concluding that the Board's denial constituted an abuse of discretion. The matter is remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard Review ApplicationProcedural RulesForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsApportionment of LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative LawFiling Requirements
References
11
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Layton v. General Electric Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her application for benefits due to untimeliness. The injury to her right elbow occurred on March 18, 1982, but a new claim was filed on March 3, 1985, after an initial report was allegedly lost. The employer raised the defense of untimeliness under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which the Board sustained. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no evidence of a timely claim filing within the two-year statutory period. The claimant's failure to file a C-3 form as required precluded her claim, and equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable.

Untimely ClaimWorkers' CompensationStatutory BarClaim DisallowanceAppeal DecisionEmployer DefenseEquitable EstoppelInjury Claim
References
0
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. CV-23-1738
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Aesoon So

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling disallowing claims for COVID-19 benefits for her deceased husband. The Board denied review because the claimant's counsel used an outdated version of form RB-89. The Appellate Division found Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a (1) inapplicable as the application was filed before its effective date. However, the court determined that the Board abused its discretion in denying review, given the minimal difference between the form versions and the lack of demonstrated prejudice. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 ClaimAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Discretionary DenialStatutory InterpretationTimelinessDeceased EmployeeCausal Connection
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 17,795 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