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

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. ADJ8717299
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

JOSEPH LOBB vs. JEFFREY D. HADDEN, JEFFREY D. HADDEN AND DOROTHY M. HADDEN DBA NAT PEST CONTROL AND FIREWOOK AKA NPC, DOROTHY M. HADDEN, NATURAL PEST CONTROLS FIREWOOD

This case involves an employer's objection, treated as a petition for reconsideration, to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded benefits to an employee. The employers claim they never received notice of the original WCJ's decision or subsequent Board actions, including the September 2, 2016 decision. The WCAB found that the employers were indeed deprived of due process due to improper service. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow the employers to file an answer and ensure a just decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessImproper NoticeOfficial Address RecordProof of ServiceDeclaration of ServiceToll StatuteActual NoticeWCJ DecisionAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Flynn v. Ace Hardware Corp.

A claimant, a forklift operator for Ace Hardware Corporation, suffered a neck injury and stopped working in April 2004, filing for workers' compensation benefits in June 2004. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, finding the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer within 30 days as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the employer was not informed of a work-related injury until June 30, 2004, and the claimant did not demonstrate that the delay was not prejudicial to the employer. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

Timely NoticeWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer PrejudiceWork-Related InjuryAppealBoard Decision30-Day Notice PeriodFamily Medical Leave ActDisability BenefitsSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Blain v. Emsig Manufacturing Corp.

On March 29, 1993, the claimant suffered back and neck injuries from a fall at her workplace. She continued working until June 2, 1993, when severe pain prevented her from continuing. At this point, she notified her employer of the work-related injury while submitting a disability benefits request. A formal workers' compensation claim was filed on August 31, 1993, exceeding the statutory 30-day notice period. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused the late notice, determining the claimant informed her employer as soon as the injury's severity was realized. The appellate court affirmed this decision, clarifying that proving prejudice to the employer is not a prerequisite for excusing late notice.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer NotificationDisability BenefitsBack InjuryNeck InjuryExcuse for Late NoticePrejudiceBoard Decision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coyle v. Morningside House of St. Luke's Home

The claimant, a 50-year-old laundry worker, suffered a myocardial infarction after forcefully pulling a machine door, which an internist later linked to her work activities. Five months post-incident, the employer received the compensation claim notice. Although initial hearings addressed issues like accident and notice, these weren't revisited when the claimant testified. The Workmen’s Compensation Board affirmed the referee's decision, excusing the claimant's failure to provide statutory written notice due to prompt medical treatment and the employer's knowledge. However, the Board neglected to determine if the employer knew of the claimant's intent to file a claim, if the carrier waived the notice issue, or if the investigation delay was excusable. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case for further findings.

myocardial infarctionlaundry worker injurynotice of claimcausal relationshipoccupational diseasewaiver of noticeprejudiceremitted for further findingsWorkmen's Compensation Board appealappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster

The claimant, a laborer, allegedly injured his right ankle on February 28, 2007, after slipping on ice at the employer's Town Hall. Despite ongoing symptoms, the claimant delayed seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury to the employer until June 27, 2007. The employer's workers' compensation carrier initially authorized medical care but later controverted the claim due to conflicting reports regarding the cause of injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim for failure to provide timely notice, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer did not waive the defense of timely notice and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim given the claimant's delay in reporting and treatment.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeAnkle InjurySlip and FallEmployer PrejudiceMedical Treatment DelayClaim DisallowanceBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cortese v. Rochester Products Division, G.M.C.

This case concerns an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant who developed leg and back pain, culminating in a herniated disc, after a new work assignment involving lifting heavy carburetors. The self-insured employer appealed the Board's findings that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that her failure to give timely statutory notice was excused. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, asserting that a compensable accident can arise from repetitive trauma leading to a sudden collapse, and the specific onset of severe pain satisfies the suddenness test. Furthermore, the Board properly excused the delayed notice as it neither aggravated the injury nor hindered the defense. Substantial medical evidence supported the causal relationship between the work activities and the injury.

Repetitive TraumaHerniated DiscLaminectomyDelayed Notice ExcusedCausal ConnectionSuddenness TestWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial EvidenceWork-related InjuryEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Baker v. E.J. Construction Group, Inc.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 26, 2004, which found he failed to provide his employer with timely notice of a January 14, 2003, work-related injury. The claimant slipped on ice and injured his hip and lower back but did not report the incident until March 2003. The Board reversed an initial award of benefits, concluding the claimant's delay in notice prejudiced the employer by preventing an investigation into the accident and injuries before a subsequent March 2003 incident. Citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the finding of employer prejudice.

Timely NoticeEmployer PrejudiceWork-Related InjuryAccident ReportBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewInjury SeverityFailure to Investigate
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 12,553 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