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. ADJ7709362
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

Gloria Kudelko vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal and reassignment of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board matter. The defendant sought removal of an order from August 9, 2011, which scheduled trial, ordered a claims adjuster to appear, and ordered her to show cause for failing to appear at a prior conference. The Board granted the petition, rescinded the August 9, 2011 order, and returned the case for reassignment to a different WCJ for trial. The Board also stated the current WCJ should proceed with the sanctions issue, allowing the adjuster an opportunity to show good cause for her non-appearance.

Petition for RemovalWCJ SanctionClaims Adjuster AppearanceReassignment WCJMandatory Settlement ConferenceShow Cause OrderIndustrial InjuryWCAB Rule 10453Interlocutory OrderPetition for Reassignment
References
0
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. 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. 535740
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Lidia Orrego

Claimant Lidia M. Orrego, a nanny, filed a workers' compensation claim in September 2019, alleging an occupational disease after being discharged in November 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, discrediting the claimant's testimony and noting the claim appeared to be an afterthought. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no support for the claimant's contentions of conspiracy and fraud, and concluding that the Board did not act arbitrarily or abuse its discretion.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseReconsiderationBoard ReviewFraud AllegationsCredibilityNanny EmploymentAppellate DivisionDenial of ClaimPro Se Appeal
References
2
Case No. CV-23-0928
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Patricio Herrera

Claimant Patricio Herrera appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed his claim for benefits, alleging he contracted COVID-19 during employment with American Badge, Inc. The Board initially established the claim but found no causally-related lost time, then later found no work-related COVID-19 contraction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that a compensable COVID-19 claim requires demonstrating specific exposure or an elevated risk in the work environment. The court found that Herrera failed to provide sufficient evidence, as his symptoms appeared before those of most coworkers, and the employer implemented safety protocols. Therefore, the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

COVID-19 claimWorkers' Compensation Board appealCausally-related injuryOccupational exposureInfection at workplaceSubstantial evidence reviewClaim disallowanceAppellate affirmationEmployer safety protocolsMedical deposition testimony
References
8
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
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. 534516
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosario Candela

Rosario Candela, a construction worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits due to lung cancer caused by asbestos and silica exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, though the Board adjusted the date of disablement and found American Zurich Insurance liable. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board improperly applied Workers' Compensation Law § 44 by focusing solely on the date of disablement rather than the timing of the disease's contraction and the last employer in the employment that caused the disease. The case was remitted to the Board for a new determination consistent with the correct legal standard.

Occupational DiseaseLung CancerAsbestos ExposureSilica ExposureWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Division ReviewDate of Disablement DisputeEmployer's LiabilityCarrier's LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law Section 44
References
6
Case No. 534702
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Hung Nguyen

Claimant Hung Nguyen, a former CVS RX Services, Inc. employee, alleged discrimination and retaliation after taking paid family leave (PFL), including reduced hours and a denied pay raise. He filed a PFL discrimination/retaliation complaint in December 2019. Despite multiple notices sent to its Rhode Island and New York addresses, the employer failed to appear at three scheduled hearings. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the employer violated PFL law and Workers' Compensation Law § 120, ordering reinstatement, back wages, and restoration of benefits. The employer's subsequent application to rehear or reopen the claim, asserting lack of notice and new evidence, was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the employer was properly notified and failed to provide new material evidence or sufficient justification for its non-appearance.

PFL DiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNoticeAbuse of DiscretionRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimEmployer LiabilityWage Loss
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,684 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