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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonilla v. State

Claimant, injured while sandblasting a bridge beam, appealed an order from the Court of Claims regarding his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims. The Court of Claims had denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss that claim, concluding no elevation-related risk. The appellate court modified this order, ruling that the claimant's work did expose him to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety devices. However, the appellate court found that neither party had made a prima facie showing for summary judgment or dismissal on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. This was due to unresolved factual issues concerning whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object as a proper safety measure, or if the lanyard itself failed to provide proper protection, thereby leaving the question of proximate cause open.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewBridge ConstructionSafety EquipmentAbsolute Liability
References
11
Case No. CV-24-1460
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Bonnie Blake

Claimant Bonnie C. Blake appealed an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, which ruled she needed to show ongoing labor market attachment for both her 2000 and 2017 injury claims. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reviewed the applicability of the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). The court found that due to her return to full-time employment at pre-injury wages at the time of her 2011 permanent partial disability classification for Claim No. 1, and no finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, the 2017 amendment applied retroactively. Consequently, the claimant was not required to demonstrate ongoing labor market attachment for Claim No. 1 to be entitled to indemnity benefits. The Court modified the Board's decision, reversing the requirement for labor market attachment in Claim No. 1 and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w)Labor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityRetroactive ApplicationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDue ProcessAppellate Division Third DepartmentWage-Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
14
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-23-1738
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
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. 533139
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Scot A Muse

Claimant Scot A. Muse suffered work-related injuries in 2018, leading to an established workers' compensation claim later amended to include a back injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement and apportioned the claim 40% to the 2018 accident and 60% to a 1997 work-related accident. Claimant's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for failure to provide a complete response to question 13 on the RB-89 form, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1). Specifically, claimant neglected to identify certain medical reports and a deposition transcript he relied on in his appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application due to the claimant's non-compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewProcedural ComplianceMaximum Medical ImprovementApportionmentAppellate DivisionForm RB-89Hearing Date
References
9
Case No. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 19,544 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