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
Mar 23, 2004

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

This case, Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., was heard by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The decision was rendered on March 23, 2004. The outcome of the case was that the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued. This indicates a resolution where further judicial review was halted by the appellant.

Appeal WithdrawnDiscontinuedWorkers' CompensationCourt of AppealsNew YorkCase Resolution
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Fox Run Farms, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund sued Fox Run Farms, Inc. to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums, obtaining a summary judgment from the Supreme Court. Fox Run challenged the premium calculation, citing audit errors, incorrect payroll figures, and the misclassification of independent contractors as employees, and requested more time to examine audit documents. The Supreme Court denied this request, holding that worker classification required administrative review. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment, ruling that Fox Run was unfairly denied sufficient time to review audit materials, thereby creating unresolved material issues of fact. The court clarified that while worker classification is an administrative matter, questions of coverage, such as independent contractor status, fall within judicial purview.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSummary JudgmentInsurance AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipPayroll ClassificationDiscovery AdjournmentAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessMaterial Issues of Fact
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06827 [175 AD3d 1728]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Fox v. Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent. Sch. Dist.

The claimant, Michelle E. (Nash) Fox, sustained a work-related injury in 2012, which was initially established for neck and hip injuries. In November 2016, she sought to amend her claim to include a causally-related head injury with concussion, which was granted by the WCLJ and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer and carrier appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the medical evidence presented by the claimant's experts to establish a causal connection between the 2012 incident and the 2016 complaints was speculative. The experts had not reviewed the claimant's prior medical records, which included a history of dizziness and depression that could mimic post-concussion symptoms. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryConcussionCausationMedical EvidencePrior Medical HistoryPosttraumatic HeadachesDizzinessFatigueAppellate Review
References
5
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. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

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

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. 5753-13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Any-Time Home Care, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a main action against former members of the insolvent Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY) to recover a significant deficit. These defendants subsequently commenced a third-party action against an auditor, an actuary, and individuals associated with the trust administrator for indemnity and contribution. The third-party defendants sought to coordinate this new action with existing coordinated cases related to the collapse of other CRM-administered trusts and to stay it pending judicial approval of their settlements with the WCB. The Supreme Court, Albany County, concluded that the third-party action is a 'related matter' subject to a prior coordination order. Consequently, the court ordered the third-party action to be coordinated and stayed, pending the determination of an Article 77 Proceeding concerning the Board's settlements.

Coordination of ActionsStay of ProceedingsThird-Party LitigationGroup Self-Insured Trusts (GSITs)Trust InsolvencyWorkers' Compensation Law (WCL)Joint and Several LiabilitySettlement AgreementsArticle 77 ProceedingLitigation Coordinating Panel
References
4
Case No. 587-14
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. 21st Century Constr. Corp.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a collection action against former members of the ELITE Contractors Trust of New York (ELITE), a group self-insured trust. The WCB sought partial summary judgment on the issue of joint and several liability for the trust's deficit, default judgments against non-appearing defendants, and discontinuance against settling defendants. Defendants raised various arguments, including the trust's alleged invalid formation, claims of unconstitutional taking, expiration of the statute of limitations, and untimely deficit assessments. The court ultimately granted the WCB's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against most defendants, affirmed the contractual and statutory basis for joint and several liability, and granted default judgments against non-appearing parties. Most of the defendants' cross-motions seeking dismissal were denied, with one exception regarding a dissolved LLC for which discovery was deemed necessary.

Workers' Compensation TrustJoint and Several LiabilityDeficit AssessmentGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Summary JudgmentDefault JudgmentStatute of LimitationsUnconstitutional TakingTrust AdministrationEmployer Liability
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06850 [212 AD3d 126]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

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

Petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, was removed from the list of authorized medical providers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he received unlawful payments from a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, Elite Medical Supply of New York, LLC. This was deemed a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-d (2) (g), 13-l (10) (g) and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (3). Petitioner challenged this removal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a statutory right to a hearing before the Chiropractic Practice Committee (CPC) prior to removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The appellate court held that while Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l (10) outlines a CPC hearing process, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board also possesses independent authority under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-l (12) and 13-d (1) to investigate and remove a provider without a hearing when the underlying facts, such as petitioner's admitted receipt of unlawful payments, are undisputed and do not present questions of fact.

ChiropractorMedical ProviderAuthorization RemovalUnlawful PaymentsDurable Medical EquipmentWorkers' Compensation BoardProfessional MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 33,485 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