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. 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. 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. CV-22-1997
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Nancy Mosner

Claimant, a New Jersey resident, was injured in California while on assignment and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in New York, listing a New York address for the employer. The employer and carrier contested the claim, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found sufficient contacts with New York to establish jurisdiction. However, the Board reversed this decision, dismissing the claim due to a finding that subject matter jurisdiction had not been established. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that despite some New York connections such as the employer's parent company having offices in New York where claimant attended meetings, these contacts were insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction given the claimant's New Jersey residency, the California location of injury, the employer's office being typically in New Jersey, and New Jersey tax withholdings.

JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationOut-of-state injuryNew York contactsAppellate DivisionSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployment SitusConflict of LawsBoard decisionSufficiency of contacts
References
12
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-23-1908
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Miosotis Peralta

Miosotis Peralta, a court officer, suffered left shoulder and knee injuries in November 2021 during her duty. She filed a workers' compensation claim, and her employer continued to pay her salary. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim but initially denied her attorney's fee request in May 2023. The Workers' Compensation Board later modified this decision in September 2023, granting the attorney a fee of $10,422.27 as a lien on reimbursement. The employer's carrier appealed, contesting the counsel fee award based on interpretations of Workers' Compensation Law sections regarding increased compensation and employer reimbursement, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Counsel FeesEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationTemporary DisabilityLien on AwardsAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewJudicial PrecedentWorkplace InjuryCourt Officer
References
17
Case No. 533556
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Alastair Kennedy

Claimant, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site. He initially filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were accepted for left foot and ankle injuries. He later alleged neck and left shoulder injuries, which the carrier contested, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation due to alleged misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant's testimony not credible regarding the accident and prior injuries, disallowed the neck and shoulder claims, and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties under § 114-a. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision to disallow the claims for neck and shoulder injuries and upheld the mandatory penalty for misrepresentation, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court reversed the imposition of the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, thereby modifying the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuriesCredibility DeterminationMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
16
Case No. CV-24-1300
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly Siddon

Kimberly Siddon appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying the reopening of her claim for an increased schedule loss of use (SLU) of her left knee. Siddon, who had previously undergone two surgeries and received SLU findings of 12% and 20%, sought a 35% SLU based on an orthopedic surgeon's report detailing worsening range of motion. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases failed to properly contest the surgeon's medical opinion, despite multiple opportunities. The Board, however, rejected the surgeon's objective range-of-motion measurements as merely subjective, a finding inconsistent with its own impairment guidelines. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Special Fund had waived its right to contest the evidence and that the Board's rationale for denial was unsupported given the uncontradicted and properly rendered medical opinion. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Knee InjuryClaim ReopeningMedical ExaminationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWaiverBoard DiscretionMedical EvidenceRange of Motion
References
7
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 17,833 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