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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05362 [208 AD3d 1565]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

Matter of Sausto v. Wildlife Conservation Socy.

Claimant Frank P. Sausto was injured while working and received workers' compensation benefits. He was found to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for making material misrepresentations concerning his work activities with his custom knife business, FS Blades, while collecting total disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, imposing only a mandatory penalty for a specified period and finding a discretionary penalty unwarranted due to the claimant's disclosures and forthright testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's modification, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and its decision regarding the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Work ActivitiesDisability BenefitsMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation LawCredibility Assessment
References
10
Case No. 533960
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of John Koratzanis

Claimant John Koratzanis sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and filed for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Koratzanis failed to disclose authoring and self-publishing books while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, only correcting typographical errors and clarifying penalty dates. The carrier appealed, seeking an earlier start date for the mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the penalty duration and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining a discretionary penalty.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationUndisclosed EmploymentMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPublishing Income Disclosure
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05568 [209 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Koratzanis v. U.S. Concrete, Inc.

Claimant John Koratzanis, a concrete mixer truck driver, sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and subsequently filed a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, contending that Koratzanis failed to disclose his activities of authoring and self-publishing books on Amazon while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty, but declined to impose a discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision with minor corrections to the mandatory penalty dates. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination regarding the mandatory penalty duration was supported by substantial evidence and that its decision not to impose a discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyUndisclosed ActivitiesSelf-PublicationBenefit DisqualificationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionOverpayment Credit
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01867
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Restrepo v. Plaza Motors of Brooklyn Inc.

Claimant Javier Restrepo, a truck driver, established work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended when the carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose operating businesses while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a significant discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the violation more narrowly, based on the claimant's admitted operation of Jady Car Carrier Corporation, and imposed a mandatory penalty and a lesser discretionary penalty. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the Board abused its discretion by imposing a lesser penalty. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's chosen penalty was not "so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" and thus not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudWage Replacement BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCredibility DeterminationTruck DriverBusiness Operation
References
7
Case No. CV-23-2275
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffery DeBryne

Claimant Jeffery DeBryne, classified as permanently totally disabled due to work-related injuries, was alleged to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by providing an estimate for a home improvement project while wearing a company logo. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a § 114-a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty and a six-month discretionary disqualification. On appeal, the Board conceded the mandatory penalty's effective date should be April 6, 2022, not October 12, 2022. The primary issue for the Appellate Division was whether the Board abused its discretion by not imposing a permanent disqualification. The Court found the Board's reasoning, based on the absence of observed "actual work" by the claimant, to be cogent and upheld the six-month discretionary penalty, modifying only the effective date of the mandatory penalty and remitting for further proceedings.

FraudDisability BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aPermanent DisqualificationSurveillance ReportHome Improvement ProjectRemitted
References
5
Case No. 533961
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Frank P. Sausto

Claimant Frank P. Sausto, a plumber, was injured and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and carrier alleged he made material misrepresentations regarding his concurrent business, FS Blades, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (1). The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) found a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty of disqualification from benefits for November 2, 2019, through December 3, 2019, but declined a discretionary permanent disqualification. The carrier appealed, arguing for a more severe discretionary penalty. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and that the Board's penalty decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMaterial MisrepresentationFraudDisability BenefitsConcurrent EmploymentAppellate ReviewPenalty DisqualificationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 533663
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Giglia

Claimant Peter Giglia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making misrepresentations on work activity reports. Giglia failed to disclose side jobs he performed while receiving benefits between September 7, 2018, and May 16, 2019. The Board assessed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including forfeiture of benefits and permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a violation and the discretionary penalty but modified the mandatory penalty, specifying that benefits should be rescinded only from September 7, 2018, to April 29, 2019, rather than the entire period of lost wages.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltiesAppellate DivisionFalse StatementWork Activity ReportsForfeitureDisqualification
References
11
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01414 [236 AD3d 1165]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Matter of DeBryne v. Pittsford Mercury, Inc.

Claimant Jeffery DeBryne, classified as permanently totally disabled due to work-related injuries, was found by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for operating a business and providing a home improvement estimate while denying for-profit activity. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the finding and the imposition of a mandatory penalty and a six-month discretionary disqualification. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's discretionary penalty, finding no abuse of discretion given the Board's rationale that no actual work was observed. However, the court modified the decision regarding the effective date of the mandatory penalty, remitting that aspect for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aDisability Benefits FraudPermanent Total DisabilityMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Division ReviewSurveillance EvidenceHome Improvement ActivityEgregious Deception
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03163 [205 AD3d 1181]
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

Matter of Nappi v. Verizon N.Y.

The claimant, Donato Nappi, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board found Nappi violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making false statements or misrepresentations regarding his prior right shoulder injury and treatment history on a C-3 form and during independent medical examinations. As a result, the Board imposed mandatory penalties, rescinding previously awarded benefits, and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of a Section 114-a violation and that the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion due to Nappi's egregious and severe lack of candor.

Workers' Compensation LawSection 114-aFalse StatementMisrepresentationPrior InjuryMedical HistoryBenefits DisqualificationWage ReplacementAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
15
Case No. CV-22-1903
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ricardo Yolas

Ricardo Yolas, a car inspector and mechanic, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Yolas's claim for work-related injuries was established, but the self-insured employer alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical condition during a permanency evaluation and failing to disclose post-retirement work activity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that Yolas deliberately misrepresented his condition and continued to work while collecting benefits, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty permanently disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and that the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion given the egregious nature of the misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent misrepresentationIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Undisclosed work activityPermanent disqualificationIndemnity benefitsSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Substantial evidenceAbuse of discretionAppellate review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,527 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