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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00202 [179 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Angarano v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The claimant, Paul Angarano, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling. The Board denied review because the claimant's counsel failed to properly complete the RB-89 form, merely referencing an attached brief for substantive information instead of filling out the required sections. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board acted within its discretionary authority in denying the application due to non-compliance with procedural formatting requirements for the RB-89 form.

Procedural ComplianceRB-89 FormApplication DeficiencyDiscretionary AuthorityWorkers' Compensation RegulationsAppellate ReviewAdministrative AppealFormal RequirementsDenial of ApplicationCase Law Affirmation
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02142 [182 AD3d 670]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Narine v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

Claimant Millicent Narine appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially denied her application for review of a WCLJ decision due to alleged non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b), which mandates complete filling of form RB-89 for administrative review. Subsequently, the Board denied her request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board abused its discretion. It determined that Narine's responses to questions 11, 12, and 15 on form RB-89 adequately identified the contested ruling and the exception, thus fulfilling the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(2)(ii). Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's August 1, 2018 decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, while dismissing the appeal from the October 2, 2018 decision as academic.

Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ)Administrative ReviewForm RB-8912 NYCRR 300.13(b)Procedural ComplianceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewClaimant RepresentationApplication for ReviewReconsideration Denial
References
8
Case No. CV-24-0555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Wiley Sutphin

This case involves an appeal by UPS and Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation (LM) from a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision. The WCB had denied LM's application for Board review concerning the apportionment of liability among three separate workers' compensation claims filed by Wiley Sutphin. The denial was based on LM's failure to file a separate copy of the RB-89 form for each claim, as advised by WCB Subject No. 046-1106R. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed the WCB's decision. The court found that the WCB's directive regarding separate filings was not explicitly stated on the RB-89 form, in its instructions, or in the Board's regulations (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [3]), thereby concluding that the Board's denial constituted an abuse of discretion. The matter is remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard Review ApplicationProcedural RulesForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsApportionment of LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative LawFiling Requirements
References
11
Case No. 534984
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juanita Jones

Claimant Juanita Jones, a train conductor, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her application for review. The Board's denial was based on her failure to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) by improperly completing question number 15 on form RB-89, specifically regarding the objection date and specific WCLJ finding. The underlying WCLJ decision found that Jones violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose work activities and imposed penalties. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for review due to noncompliance with the regulatory requirements. The court also noted that a recently enacted Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a was not applicable to this case as it took effect after claimant filed her form RB-89.

Workers' Compensation AppealBoard Review DenialForm RB-89Procedural ComplianceFiling RequirementsWCLJ DecisionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationAppellate DivisionAdministrative ReviewClaimant Non-Compliance
References
9
Case No. CV-23-1738
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Aesoon So

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling disallowing claims for COVID-19 benefits for her deceased husband. The Board denied review because the claimant's counsel used an outdated version of form RB-89. The Appellate Division found Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a (1) inapplicable as the application was filed before its effective date. However, the court determined that the Board abused its discretion in denying review, given the minimal difference between the form versions and the lack of demonstrated prejudice. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 ClaimAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Discretionary DenialStatutory InterpretationTimelinessDeceased EmployeeCausal Connection
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01883 [181 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Barrett v. BSR, LLC

The claimant, Brendan Barrett, sustained a back injury while working and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, which was established by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier sought administrative review from the Workers' Compensation Board. However, the Board denied their application (RB-89 form) because it failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) by not specifying when the noted objections were interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for review due to the carrier's failure to provide a complete response to question 15 on the form.

Workers' Compensation Board ReviewAdministrative ProcedureAppellate Division Third DepartmentForm Completion RequirementsRB-89 FormProcedural ComplianceObjections and ExceptionsDiscretionary DenialWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05740 [174 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Presida v. Health Quest Sys., Inc.

Claimant Oprah Presida sustained a work-related injury to her right knee, which was later amended to include a causally-related lower back injury, and a total knee replacement was authorized. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The Board denied this application, finding it defective for not complying with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b)(1), which requires applications to be completely filled out on Form RB-89 without merely referring to attached documents. The carrier appealed this denial, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application due to the carrier's failure to provide complete responses on the prescribed form.

Appellate ReviewApplication for Board ReviewProcedural ComplianceForm RB-89Administrative LawDenial of ApplicationArbitrary and Capricious StandardJudiciary Law § 431Work-Related InjuryKnee Injury
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06837
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of McCorry v. BOCES of Clinton, Essex, Warren & Wash. Counties

Cindy Lee McCorry sustained work-related knee injuries in 2010 and 2012, leading to an award of workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined a 40% schedule loss of use for her right knee and a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding her attached to the labor market. However, the Workers' Compensation Board later ruled that McCorry failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. McCorry's subsequent application for Board review, filed in January 2018 using Form RB-89, was denied because she left question number 15 blank, which the Board deemed a defective application according to 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion, given its consistent application of the rule requiring complete forms.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureBoard ReviewForm RB-89Administrative LawLabor Market AttachmentSchedule Loss of UseProcedural ComplianceDue ProcessDiscretionary Review
References
15
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 841 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