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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Becker v. Rauli & Sons, Inc.

Alan M. Becker Sr. was found to have a permanent total disability due to work-related ailments and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits. The employer’s carrier was directed to deposit the present value of all unpaid benefits into the aggregate trust fund by February 2009, but failed to do so, instead continuing direct payments to Mr. Becker. After Mr. Becker's death in August 2009, the carrier sought to be relieved of its obligation to make the deposit. The Workers’ Compensation Board declined this request and directed the deposit be made with interest. The employer and carrier appealed, contending the Board’s refusal constituted an unexplained departure from prior precedent, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the facts of the instant case distinguishable from the cited precedent.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundPermanent Total DisabilityCarrier LiabilityAppealBoard DecisionPrecedentBenefit PaymentsInterestStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Turi v. Five L. Enterprises, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant's spouse died in a 1993 work-related accident, leading to an award of death benefits. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier was directed to deposit a substantial sum into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) but failed to do so. The claimant sought to impose a 20% penalty on the carrier for this untimely payment, arguing it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant lacked standing to request such a penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that issues regarding late deposits into the ATF are between the ATF and the carrier, not the claimant, and are governed by separate regulations (12 NYCRR 393.2).

Aggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsPenalty ImpositionTimely DepositStandingWorkers' Compensation CarrierWorkers' Compensation BoardLate PaymentActuarial ComputationJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2010

Flynn v. Managed Care, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier and employer challenging a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the carrier was entitled to a refund of $64,540.56 from the aggregate trust fund (ATF). The dispute arose when the carrier, directed to deposit funds into the ATF after a decedent's employment-related death, withheld payment during appeals and paid beneficiaries directly. After the award was affirmed, the carrier deposited the required sum with interest and sought a full refund for its prior direct payments. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's delayed payment justified the interest charge to prevent a windfall and ensure the ATF maintained sufficient funds.

Workers' Compensation BoardAggregate Trust FundWorkers' Compensation CarrierEmployer AppealRefund DisputeInterest CalculationLate PaymentCommutationBeneficiary PaymentsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oi Tai Chan v. Society of Shaolin Temple, Inc.

In this vigorously contested action alleging fraud and breach of contract, the court addressed several motions. Defendant Shi's motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of significant monetary transfers from the plaintiff to a religious organization. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to resume defendant Shi's deposition, sanctioning defense counsel Kenneth Jiang for repeatedly instructing his client not to answer questions in defiance of prior court directives. Additionally, the court denied Shi's cross-motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, citing a lack of necessary testimony, cumulative evidence, and the motion's untimely and potentially retaliatory nature. A special referee was appointed to supervise remaining discovery and settlement efforts.

Fraudulent InducementBreach of ContractDiscovery DisputeSummary Judgment MotionDeposition ObstructionAttorney SanctionsCounsel DisqualificationRules of Professional ConductAudio Recording AdmissibilityQueens County Court
References
68
Case No. ADJ2023809 (SRO 0103259)
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

Robert Larkins vs. DHL GLOBAL BUSINESS SERVICES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied DHL Global Business Services' petition for reconsideration. The Board found that DHL's unilateral decision to stop direct deposit payments violated a prior order and was sanctionable conduct. The applicant, Robert Larkins, was awarded permanent disability and future medical treatment following a 1998 injury. The Board's decision affirmed the obligation to continue electronic direct deposits and upheld sanctions against DHL for non-compliance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDHL Global Business ServicesSedgwick CMSRobert LarkinsOrder Denying ReconsiderationDirect DepositSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bouyea v. McLane Northeast

Claimant suffered compensable injuries to the right shoulder and lower back in 2000 and 2002, leading to a classification of permanent partial disability in 2009. The case concerns an appeal by the employer's workers' compensation carrier regarding a direction to make a lump-sum deposit into the aggregate trust fund. This direction was issued because the award was made after July 1, 2007, even though the injuries predated the 2007 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the direction, finding it consistent with statutory language. The appellate court affirmed the decision, noting that similar challenges to the Workers' Compensation Law provisions had been previously rejected.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundLump-Sum DepositStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewInjury CompensationPre-2007 AmendmentPost-2007 AwardCarrier Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management

This Memorandum and Order addresses a discovery dispute concerning the depositions of three non-party witnesses (Timothy McMullan, James Cook, and Timothy McFadden) in a class action lawsuit against Genworth in the Eastern District of New York. Defendants Genworth argued that a prior injunction from a parallel Connecticut case prohibited these witnesses from testifying. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Brown, found that the Connecticut injunction does not, by its express terms, bar deposition testimony in this matter, especially given existing confidentiality orders. Therefore, the court overruled Genworth's objections and directed the TJT witnesses to proceed with their depositions, allowing a 30-day period for Genworth to appeal the decision or identify specific objections.

Deposition TestimonyInjunction ScopeTrade SecretsConfidential InformationClass ActionMagistrate Judge RulingProtective OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFraudulent SchemeMisrepresentations
References
10
Case No. CV-24-0993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Daphyne Rodin

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 2014, leading to differing medical opinions on schedule loss of use (SLU) between her treating physician and the carrier's orthopedic consultant. A conciliation decision directed depositions, and claimant's counsel subpoenaed the carrier's consultant, who failed to appear. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found no SLU, with the Board refusing to preclude the consultant's report due to claimant's counsel's failure to timely request an extension for the deposition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that claimant waived the right to cross-examine the consultant by not making reasonable efforts to reschedule or seek an extension for the deposition. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision not to preclude the medical report.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Medical Report PreclusionDeposition TestimonyCross-Examination RightsWaiver of RightAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedic InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,706 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