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. 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. 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. 534697
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Philome Pierre

Philome Pierre, a freight delivery driver, sought workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with COVID-19. The employer and carrier disputed the claim, arguing it wasn't a covered accident arising from employment. After an independent medical examination and hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that contracting COVID-19 in the workplace constitutes a compensable accidental injury under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Pierre contracted COVID-19 during his employment.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceCausationMedical EvidenceFreight DriverWorkplace HazardAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 534625
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Dante Daly

Claimant Dante E. Daly appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which denied his claim for benefits related to alleged exposure during World Trade Center (WTC) rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations. Daly, a budget analyst for the New York City Office of Management & Budget, was assigned to budgetary analysis for WTC-related operations after September 11, 2001, but did not directly participate in the physical cleanup. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found that his activities were not covered by Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A and thus, the claim was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that Daly's job duties as a budget analyst lacked a direct or tangible connection to the WTC rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations, upholding the Board's discretion in applying the statute.

World Trade CenterWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBudgetary AnalysisCleanup OperationsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of ClaimWaiver of DefensesAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
15
Case No. CV-22-2294, CV-22-2299
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Reyes Bonilla

Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, filed workers' compensation claims after being injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a job site in an employer-provided van. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed decisions that established their claims against XL Specialty Insurance, ruling that their injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge and that the injuries were compensable due to the employer's control over transportation. The court also concluded that XL Specialty's policy exclusion was inapplicable as the transportation was incidental to the project.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCourse of EmploymentEmployer Provided TransportationInsurance Coverage DisputeWrap-up PolicyAppellate ReviewPreclusionPenalties
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiley v. City of Watertown Fire Department

Claimant, a paid firefighter, was injured in 1981 while working for the City of Watertown Fire Department and received benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a until 1999. After his benefits were terminated and confirmed on appeal, he sought workers' compensation. The employer contested coverage, arguing paid firefighters were not covered prior to his 1981 injury and the claim was time-barred. The Workers’ Compensation Board found coverage was extended by a 1933 city resolution and the claim was timely. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the 1933 resolution only reiterated the city's self-insurance for already covered employees, and did not extend coverage to previously uncovered employees like paid firefighters, which only occurred with a 1984 resolution. Therefore, the claimant was not covered at the time of his injury, and the claim was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationFirefighterMunicipal LawStatutory InterpretationCoverage DisputeRetroactivitySelf-InsuranceResolutionCity CouncilAppeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

In re the Claim of Franklin

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 15, 1995, which deemed her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to insufficient weeks of covered employment during her base period. The claimant argued for backdating her claim to May 1, 1995, citing employer unresponsiveness. However, a prior written statement indicated the delay was due to seeking additional workers' compensation disability benefits. The Board credited this statement over the claimant's testimony. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and affirmed it without costs.

Unemployment InsuranceBenefits EligibilityBackdating ClaimMaternity LeaveDisability LeaveCovered EmploymentBase PeriodWorkers' CompensationAppeal Board DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 17,931 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