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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ9697744
Regular
May 25, 2018

JASON POIRIER vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, CITY OF BRISBANE; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision that denied Jason Poirier's claim for kidney cancer benefits. The Board found that the City of Menlo Park failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that Poirier's cancer was industrially caused. Crucially, the Board ruled that Poirier's prior employment with the City of Brisbane could be combined with his Menlo Park employment to satisfy the minimum latency period for cancer causation, a point the trial judge had incorrectly excluded. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to establish that Poirier sustained an industrial injury and returned the case for benefit determination.

Labor Code section 3212.1renal cell carcinomacarcinogen presumptionrebuttallatency periodcumulative traumapolice officerCity of Menlo ParkCity of Brisbaneindustrial injury
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00831 [224 AD3d 1051]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Golisano v. ABX Innovative Packaging Solutions LLC

The claimant, Jason R. Golisano, filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 for injuries to his left wrist and hand. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury. The employer and its carrier (appellants) sought review of this decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The Board denied the application as untimely, and the carrier appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely application, despite the carrier's arguments regarding a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Workers' CompensationTimelinessApplication for ReviewBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewCOVID-19Procedural IssueWCLJ DecisionEmployer-Carrier AppealNew York Law
References
4
Case No. CV-22-1926
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Golisano

Claimant Jason R. Golisano filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 alleging work-related injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury in September 2021. The employer and its carrier filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board on November 3, 2021, which was denied as untimely because it was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The carrier appealed, contending the Board should have exercised its discretion to accept the late application, citing a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWCLJ Decision30-Day LimitJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural IssueCOVID-19 Impact
References
4
Case No. 530021, 531210
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Michel Salinas

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim for work-related injuries by Michel Salinas. The WCLJ initially identified Power Services Solutions LLC as the employer and Everest National Insurance Company as the carrier, despite a printing error on the notice of hearing. Everest's appeal to the Board was denied as untimely, a decision subsequently upheld by the full Board. The Appellate Division found that the Board abused its discretion in denying Everest's application for review, citing defective or misleading correspondence and strong evidence suggesting a fraudulent certificate of insurance. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the Board's responsibility to investigate potential fraud.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudulent DocumentsInsurance CoverageEmployer IdentificationNotice RequirementsAdministrative LawWork-Related Accident
References
20
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07321
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Salinas v. Power Servs. Solutions LLC

The case involves a workers' compensation claim by Michel Salinas, which identified Power Services Solutions LLC as the employer and Everest National Insurance Company as the carrier. Everest's appeal to the Workers' Compensation Board was denied as untimely despite concerns about deficient notice and a potentially fraudulent certificate of insurance. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding an abuse of discretion given the strong evidence of fraud and the flawed communication to Everest. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to investigate the fraud allegations. The court emphasized that the Board should not ignore legitimate evidence of fraud.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionBoard DiscretionTimeliness of AppealFraudulent Insurance CertificateNotice RequirementsEmployer IdentificationCarrier LiabilityRemittalAbuse of Discretion
References
25
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durant v. A.C.S. State & Local Solutions Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Durant filed a lawsuit against A.C.S. State and Local Solutions, Inc. (ACS) alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Durant, a customer service representative, claimed she received two sexually explicit notes from a co-worker, Terri Simeon. Upon reporting the second note, ACS swiftly responded by moving Durant's workstation and disciplining Simeon, which ended the direct harassment. Despite these actions, Durant resigned, asserting constructive discharge because Simeon was not fired. The court granted summary judgment in favor of ACS, ruling that there was no quid pro quo harassment, the environment was not sufficiently hostile, no constructive discharge occurred, and her state law claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also failed or were time-barred.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentQuid Pro QuoConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityCorrective ActionCo-worker MisconductEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII
References
21
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 17,738 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