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

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 1986

Claim of Fischer v. Princess Ribbon Corp.

The Special Disability Fund appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which found the employer and its insurance carrier eligible for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) for death benefits paid to the claimant’s widow and minor child. The Fund argued that the employer lacked knowledge of the claimant's preexisting permanent physical impairment, a requirement for reimbursement, and also contested the necessity for an 'informed decision' by the employer. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that the employer's secretary/treasurer had knowledge and a good-faith belief in the impairment’s permanency. Additionally, the Fund contended that the Board failed to address the contribution of the preexisting impairment to the claimant's death and that the record lacked supporting evidence for such a finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board had addressed the contribution issue and that substantial evidence in the record supported its conclusion.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPreexisting Permanent Physical ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeWorkers' Compensation Law § 15 (8)Death BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRetroactive Effect of Amendment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

An eight-year-old boy, Garfield Stephenson, suffered severe burns after an eleven-year-old used a sample can of Raid Max insecticide as a 'blowtorch'. The samples, distributed by Impact Media Network, Inc. for S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., were left on apartment doorknobs in a Brooklyn housing project. Stephenson and his mother sued S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Impact Media Network, Inc., and Foster Apartments Group (the property manager) for negligence. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing the assailant's intentional act was unforeseeable and broke the causal connection. The court granted summary judgment for S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., agreeing that the intervening criminal act was extraordinary and unforeseeable given their lack of knowledge of similar prior incidents. However, the court denied summary judgment for Impact Media Network, Inc. and Foster Apartments Group because they failed to provide affidavits demonstrating their lack of knowledge of similar prior incidents, which is crucial for establishing unforeseeability as a matter of law. Foster's cross-claim against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. was also dismissed.

ForeseeabilityIntervening ActProximate CauseSummary JudgmentNegligenceAerosol Product LiabilityChild InjuryProduct DistributionCriminal ActHousing Project
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1999

McLaughlin v. North Colonie Central School District

Petitioner, an employee injured in July 1998 while working on a construction project owned by the respondent, moved in March 1999 to serve a late notice of claim, significantly past the 90-day statutory period. The Supreme Court denied this application. On appeal, the petitioner argued that his delay should be excused due to his unawareness of the severity of his injuries and the respondent's timely knowledge of the incident. However, the Appellate Division found no supporting affidavit from the petitioner or medical evidence, thus dismissing the excuse offered by counsel. The court also rejected the argument that the general contractor's knowledge could be imputed to the respondent, citing a lack of evidence of actual timely knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the motion was affirmed, as there was no viable excuse for the delay or proof of the respondent's timely actual knowledge.

Late notice of claimmunicipal liabilityconstruction site accidentactual knowledgeimputed knowledgejudicial discretionworkers' compensation claimpersonal injuryappealprocedural law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. ADJ10425864, ADJ7159539
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

GHASSAN MOSRIE vs. CHURCH OF THE CHIMES, GUIDEONE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant's 2008 injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined that imputed knowledge from the applicant's attorney does not constitute actual knowledge for tolling purposes. The employer's failure to provide statutory notice of rights, coupled with the applicant's lack of actual knowledge, prejudiced the applicant. Therefore, the Board found the applicant's claim for the November 8, 2008 injury is not barred by the statute of limitations, deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsTollingClaim FormNotice of Potential EligibilityWaiverMandatory Settlement ConferenceAffirmative DefenseActual Knowledge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sanders v. Langaster Central School System

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed March 1, 1979, which discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15(8). The claimant's decedent, a school grounds keeper for Lancaster Central School System, suffered a fatal myocardial infarction in 1975. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging the decedent had a prior physical impairment of coronary artery disease. The core issue on appeal was whether the employer had knowledge of this prior impairment. Testimony from the school superintendent and other witnesses indicated no such knowledge or perception of permanency. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the employer lacked the requisite knowledge.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer KnowledgePrior ImpairmentMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionAppellate AffirmationReimbursement ClaimCoronary Artery Disease
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Griffin v. John Civetta & Sons

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision discharging the Special Disability Fund from liability. The claimant sustained two back injuries, one prior to employment in September 1973 and a compensable one in October 1974 while working for the employer. Subsequently, the claimant's disability was apportioned 50% to each accident. The central issue was whether the employer had the requisite knowledge of the claimant's pre-existing permanent impairment, a condition for the Special Disability Fund's liability under Workers’ Compensation Law section 15 (subd 8, par [d]). The Board discredited evidence provided by the appellants, including a statement prepared by the employer's carrier and the job superintendent's vague testimony, finding insufficient proof of employer knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the employer lacked the necessary knowledge.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundPre-existing ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeDisability ApportionmentAppellate ReviewCredibility of EvidenceWorkers’ Compensation LawBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc.

Brenda K. Woodman filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination against WWOR-TV, Inc., News America, Inc., and Fox Television Stations, Inc., following her termination in 2001 at the age of 61. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting they lacked knowledge of Woodman's age, a prerequisite for intentional age discrimination. The court determined that Woodman failed to present sufficient prima facie evidence to establish that the defendants were aware of her age at the time of her discharge. Her arguments based on circumstantial evidence, such as general industry knowledge of her age or personnel file access, were deemed speculative and insufficient. The court also dismissed Woodman's disparate impact claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and rejected the application of the joint employer doctrine to impute knowledge. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentADEANYSHRLNYCHRLDisparate TreatmentEmployer KnowledgePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkMerger and Acquisition
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,744 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