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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gabisch v. J. F. C. Rental Corp.

Martin C. Gabisch died from injuries sustained in a work-related accident on March 28, 1985. His parents, Martin J. Gabisch and his wife (referred to as Claimant Mother), filed a claim for compensation asserting dependency. Initially, a finding of dependence was made, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, concluding that the claimants were not wholly or partially dependent on the decedent. The claimants subsequently appealed this Board decision. The court reviewed the evidence, noting that the deceased contributed approximately $550 per month to the family income, while the claimant father earned about $3,000 per month. The court determined that the evidence presented did not establish that the claimants were dependent upon the decedent, as they needed to prove they were not independently self-supporting. Consequently, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Parental DependencyWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewFinancial SupportWork-Related AccidentDependency ClaimBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Racha v. Vernon Racha/Vern's Truck & Diesel Service

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim for death benefits to a posthumous out-of-wedlock child, arguing a lack of dependency evidence. The appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that while acknowledgment is no longer a statutory requirement for out-of-wedlock children, evidence of a deceased parent's acknowledgment is crucial for establishing dependency, especially when the child is born after the parent's death. The court found that the undisputed testimony of the decedent acknowledging the unborn child, coupled with his plans to marry the mother and provide housing, created a presumption of dependency. This presumption was further buttressed by the mother's subsequent inability to care for the child. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision.

DependencyPosthumous ChildOut-of-wedlock childPaternityWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial AccidentDeath BenefitsAcknowledgmentPresumption of DependencyReversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Serafin v. Pleasant Valley Wine Co.

This case is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed October 19, 1982, which denied benefits to a claimant widow and two dependent children. The claim stemmed from the death of the decedent, an assistant sales manager for Pleasant Valley Wine Company, who died of a myocardial infarction on November 2, 1976, allegedly after carrying wine cases for work. The carrier contested the claim due to untimely filing and lack of employer notification under section 18 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Conflicting medical opinions were presented regarding the causal connection between the decedent's work activity and his death. The Board concluded that the application was untimely filed, prejudicing the employer, and found no credible evidence of an accident arising from employment, nor any advance payment of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the Board's findings and its power to resolve conflicting medical opinions, as well as the prejudice to the employer from the untimely claim.

Untimely ClaimWorkers CompensationMyocardial InfarctionCausal ConnectionEmployer NotificationConflicting Medical OpinionsPrejudiceScope of EmploymentAccidentDependent Benefits
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estate of Allen v. Colgan

James P. Allen suffered a work-related fall in 1988, which led to his death in 1991 as a quadraplegic in a coma. His son's claim for workers' compensation death benefits was denied because he was not a full-time student and was over 18. The administrator of Allen's estate then filed a death claim, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ordered the employer's insurance carrier to pay $50,000 into the estate under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). Additionally, because there were no dependents, the carrier was directed to pay $5,000 into the No-Dependency Funds as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (9) and § 26-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board unanimously affirmed this decision. The employer appealed, contending that the $50,000 payment created a new class of dependents, thereby eliminating the requirement for No-Dependency Fund payments. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the $50,000 payment was intended for a no-dependency situation and did not negate the obligation to contribute to the No-Dependency Funds.

Death BenefitsNo-Dependency PaymentsWorkers' Comp Law § 16(4-b)Workers' Comp Law § 15(9)Workers' Comp Law § 26-aStatutory InterpretationEstate ClaimsUninsured Employees FundVocational Rehabilitation FundAppeals Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1987

In Re the Complaint of DFDS Seaways (Bahamas) Ltd.

The case concerns claims brought by Doris Hettiger and Harold Lavoie, parents of Colleen Skantar, who died in a fire on the M/V Scandinavian Sun in Fort Lauderdale in 1984. The defendant shipowner moved to dismiss their claims for damages. The court examined whether these claims were permissible under general maritime law, supplemented by either the Florida Wrongful Death Act or the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). The court ruled that Harold Lavoie, as a non-dependent parent of an adult child with a surviving spouse, could not recover for 'loss of society' under general maritime law. However, Doris Hettiger's claim for 'loss of services,' characterized as pecuniary loss due to her daughter's free labor in her butcher shop, was deemed potentially compensable, provided dependency could be proven at the time of death. The motion to dismiss was granted for Harold Lavoie but denied for Doris Hettiger, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled for her claim.

Admiralty lawMaritime lawWrongful deathLoss of servicesLoss of societyParental claimsDependencyFlorida Wrongful Death ActDeath on the High Seas ActPecuniary loss
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 17,722 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