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
Apr 19, 2004

Claim of Provoncha v. Anytime Home Care, Inc.

A 17-year-old certified nurses aid, identified as the claimant, sustained a back injury while employed by Anytime Home Care, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board initiated proceedings to determine if her employment violated the Labor Law, which would entitle her to double compensation under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a. Despite requests, the employer failed to produce the required employment certificate at two hearings and its requests for further adjournments or to present alternative testimony were denied. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the claimant was illegally employed due to the lack of an employment certificate. Consequently, the Board affirmed her entitlement to double compensation. The appellate court reviewed the employer's contentions and ultimately affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationChild Labor LawIllegal EmploymentDouble CompensationEmployment CertificateAdministrative HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityLabor Law ViolationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1978

Hasten v. Morse Electro Products Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that authorized a double indemnity award under section 14-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant, who was 17 years old, misrepresented his age as 18 when applying for employment, and the employer did not request his working papers. A compensable injury subsequently occurred, and the Board found the employer in violation of Labor Law sections 132 and 135, which require minors under 18 to present an employment certificate. The court affirmed the decision, ruling that the employer's failure to see the work permit constituted a violation of the Labor Law, thereby justifying the double compensation, despite the employment being otherwise permissible. The court noted the strictness of the law but was bound by precedent.

Workers' CompensationMinor EmploymentDouble IndemnityLabor Law ViolationEmployment CertificateWork PermitAge MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEducation Law
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. Reicon Group, LLC

Claimant, a dock builder, was injured and sought state workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested the Workers’ Compensation Board's jurisdiction, asserting that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) was applicable and a waiver of federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113 was required. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found concurrent jurisdiction between state law and the LHWCA for land-based injuries, rendering a § 113 waiver unnecessary. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that § 113 applies only where a federal scheme preempts state remedies, which is not the case with LHWCA. The court also highlighted that concurrent jurisdiction prevents double recovery.

Concurrent JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWorkers’ Compensation BoardAdmiralty LawFederal PreemptionWaiver of Federal RightsLand-Based InjuriesDock BuilderDouble RecoveryJones Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Riccardi v. ARA Leisure Services

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from March 5, 1990, which denied his claim for double workers’ compensation benefits, ruling he was not illegally employed. The claimant argued he was entitled to double benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a due to illegal employment. However, a certificate of employment was produced, showing his employment was authorized. The burden was then on the claimant to prove violations of Labor Law §§ 132 and 135. The claimant failed to present evidence that he did not give working papers to the employer or that the employer did not request or keep them on file. Consequently, the claimant did not meet his burden of proof, and the Workers’ Compensation Board's finding that no illegal employment existed was upheld. The court affirmed the decision, finding no reason to remit the matter for further development of the record.

Illegal EmploymentDouble Workers' Compensation BenefitsCertificate of EmploymentBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionLabor Law ComplianceAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wolf v. Foxhall Village Stables

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a 17-year-old seasonal employee, was injured while performing farm work for an employer primarily involved in raising and selling horses. Initially, a referee imposed double compensation due to the claimant's age, citing Workers’ Compensation Law, § 14-a. However, the employer argued that farm laborers are exempt from illegal employment provisions under Labor Law § 133(6), a stance the Board agreed with, reversing the double compensation award. The claimant subsequently appealed the Board's reversal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the employer's operation, which included raising and selling horses, constitutes a 'farm' under the relevant Labor Law provisions, thus making the claimant a farm laborer subject to the exemption.

Workers' CompensationFarm LaborSeasonal EmployeeDouble CompensationLabor Law ExemptionIllegal EmploymentHorse FarmingAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMinors in Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gorleski v. Town of Halfmoon

A 14-year-old claimant was injured while bracing heavy wooden panels for the Town of Halfmoon's Parks and Recreation Department. She sought double compensation under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a, arguing her work constituted prohibited "construction work" for minors. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, finding her activity did not fall under the definition of construction work. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that moving and bracing panels without tools was not "construction work" as defined by relevant Labor Law sections and regulations, thus upholding the denial of double compensation.

Minor employment injuryDouble compensationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14-aLabor Law § 133 (2) (i)Construction work definitionProhibited employmentAppellate court decisionInjury claimYouth labor lawStatutory interpretation
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Matter of Kelly v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burroughs v. Empire State Agricultural Compensation Trust

Claimant, a dairy farmer, sustained work-related injuries in November 2001 when he fell from a ladder. A claim for workers’ compensation benefits was filed, which the carrier controverted, disputing claimant's employee status. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the employer was a limited liability corporation and claimant was an executive officer, thus covered under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ’s findings. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the record was insufficient to establish the employer’s true status or claimant’s relationship to it, and remitted the matter for further development of the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusLimited Liability CorporationExecutive OfficerCoverage DisputeAppellate ReviewRemittalRecord DevelopmentNew York Workers' Compensation LawDairy Farmer
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 21,056 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