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 The outcome of the case was that the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued.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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01011 [169 AD3d 1477]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Matter of Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which had granted partial summary judgment to Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., et al., and 3679 River Road, Inc., et al. These parties were respondents and intervenors-respondents, respectively, while the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board and others were the appellants. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed the appeal. However, prior to a full merits decision, the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was a result of a stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for all parties involved on January 15, 2019.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentAppeal DismissalStipulation of DiscontinuanceOnondaga CountyJudiciary LawFourth DepartmentProceduralCase Dismissal
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. 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. ADJ18816357
Regular
May 15, 2025

JERRY WILLIAMS vs. PRIMORIS ELECTRIC, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were to occur. The decision emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board, referencing precedents like Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. and Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. for this stance.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04054
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Episcopal Church Home & Affiliates, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (plaintiff) assumed administration of the Long Term Care Risk Management Group, a self-insurance trust, and levied assessments against its former members (defendants) to cover an accumulated deficit. Defendants appealed an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment, raising issues regarding the summons's jurisdictional sufficiency, the timeliness of plaintiff's subsequent assessments, and the applicability of a collection fee. The Appellate Division determined the summons was jurisdictionally sound and that the statutory 120-day period for levying assessments was directory, not mandatory, thus upholding the validity of later assessments. However, the Court modified the order by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a collection fee, ruling that the fluctuating and unliquidated nature of the deficit did not meet the "liquidated sum" requirement of State Finance Law § 18. Consequently, the appeal was partially dismissed, the order and judgment modified to remove the collection fee, and affirmed in all other respects.

Group Self-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of AssessmentsJurisdictional DefectSummary JudgmentState Finance LawCollection FeesLiquidated DebtAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04664 [197 AD3d 566]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2021

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

Fernando M. Maldonado appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied his CPLR article 78 petition. Maldonado sought review of determinations by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) concerning a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. His administrative appeal of the WCB's partial denial of documents was deemed untimely by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that Maldonado failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. This failure arose from not appealing the WCB's initial FOIL determination within the 30-day period prescribed by Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (a).

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)Administrative RemediesExhaustion of Administrative RemediesUntimely AppealWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyPublic Officers LawJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05261 [187 AD3d 1252]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Workers' Compensation Bd. of the State of N.Y. v. Williams Auto Parts Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board imposed a penalty on Williams Auto Parts Inc. and its president, Joseph Williams, for failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage. Following nonpayment, the Board obtained a judgment against them, which defendants subsequently moved to vacate in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the entry of judgment by the County Clerk was a ministerial act and that only the Appellate Division holds the authority to review final determinations of the Workers' Compensation Board prior to judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentFailure to Secure CoverageJudgment VacaturSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate DivisionMinisterial ActStatutory InterpretationExclusive JurisdictionDue Process
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 36,840 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