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 the Claim of Ryan v. Metropolitan Property & Liability

The claimant sustained a stress-related injury while employed by Metropolitan Property & Liability, also holding concurrent employment as a waitress. Her average weekly wage was calculated based on both employments. Metropolitan's insurance carrier, Travelers/Aetna, sought reimbursement from the Special Funds Conservation Committee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) and § 15 (8). The Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the initial reimbursement, ruling the entire award should be charged against the carrier as its maximum liability was $150. The carrier and Metropolitan appealed this decision, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's ruling, stating that the employer's liability would not be greater than under previous law for dissimilar concurrent employment, thus warranting no reimbursement from the Special Funds.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentStress-related InjuryAverage Weekly WageReimbursementSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteePermanent Partial DisabilityLump-sum AdjustmentInsurance Carrier LiabilityDissimilar Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

Claim of Khomitch v. Crotched Mountain Community

Claimant was injured in 2004 and received compensation through February 2007. In 2011, she sought reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages, leading to a stipulation where the carrier paid $4,750 for medical and transportation expenses (M&T). The carrier then sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued the M&T payment was disguised compensation to improperly trigger the liability transfer. The Board Panel, after remittal, concluded that the Special Fund has standing to litigate if the payment was an advance payment of compensation. The Board rescinded the liability transfer to the Special Fund, without prejudice, pending further evidence. The employer and carrier appealed this decision, which was ultimately affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BoardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aMedical and Transportation ExpensesAdvance Payment of CompensationStanding to LitigateClosed Case ReopeningIndemnity BenefitsBoard Panel Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2013

Claim of Scott v. Rochester City School District

The claimant injured his back in 2004 while working as a custodian's assistant and the claim was established in 2009. In 2008, the claimant sustained an unrelated left knee injury and stopped working. In 2012, the claimant sought treatment for his back injury, claiming three months of lost time. The workers' compensation carrier sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the transfer of liability and the award of benefits for a temporary, marked partial disability, prompting an appeal by the Special Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the award for lost time prior to the hearing was consistent with the Board's precedent regarding the timing of raising the issue of labor market attachment.

Workers' Compensation BoardSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability TransferLabor Market AttachmentPartial DisabilityLost WagesBack InjuryKnee InjuryAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Wetterau v. Canada Dry

The claimant sustained two work-related back injuries in 1999 and 2005 while working for the same employer. The 1999 claim was closed in 2000, and the 2005 claim resulted in a permanent partial disability classification, with the carrier making ongoing payments. Both claims were reopened to determine apportionment and the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a to the 1999 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for the 1999 claim shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, finding no advance payment of compensation by the carrier on the 2005 claim attributable to the 1999 injury. The Board concluded that the two injuries were distinctly different, and the carrier was not on notice that payments for the 2005 claim encompassed the 1999 claim. This decision to shift liability was affirmed on appeal, without costs.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aLiability ShiftAdvance Payment of CompensationApportionmentPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryAnkle InjuryPreexisting ConditionSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2009

Claim of Maguire v. United Parcel Service

In April 2001, a claimant suffered a back injury, receiving continuous medical treatment voluntarily paid by the employer's workers' compensation carrier. The carrier sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, an application the Workers' Compensation Board granted, asserting the claim was previously closed. The Special Fund appealed this decision, contending that the claim was never formally closed due to the claimant's ongoing medical treatment. The appellate court reversed the Board's determination, finding insufficient evidence that the carrier had ceased medical payments, which would be necessary for the claim to be considered closed. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's finding that liability could not be shifted.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 25-aLiability ShiftClaim ReopeningClaim ClosureMedical Treatment PaymentsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew York
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Walker v. Carrier Air Conditioning Division of Carrier Corp.

The claimant injured her back in 1974, and her case was closed in 1979. It was reopened in 1982 concerning medical bill payments. The central issue was the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, which shifts liability for additional medical expenses to the Special Fund if a case is finally closed for a specified period. The employer and carrier argued that the 1979 closing was final, making the Special Fund liable. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the 1979 closing was not final due to an outstanding disability claim and the claimant's inability to attend a medical examination. This decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability, was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundSection 25-aCase ClosureLiabilityMedical ExpensesAppealReopening CaseFinality of DecisionEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant suffered compensable right knee injuries in 1992 and 1994, leading to a stipulated 22.5% schedule loss of use award in 2001, after which the cases were closed. Upon reopening in 2005, liability shifted from the employer's workers' compensation carrier to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Following a recurrence of injuries in October 2005, the Fund sought a credit for the prior schedule loss of use award paid by the carrier, which was initially denied but later granted by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the Fund should not receive credit for awards commencing more than two years prior to the transfer of liability, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) and prior case law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that the Fund assumes the carrier's rights and responsibilities, including any existing credits, and distinguished the cited precedent based on a lack of injury reclassification in the current case.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSchedule Loss of Use AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCredit Against AwardsLiability TransferRecurrence of InjuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionStipulationCase Reopening
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kuczynski v. Trinity Foundry

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning the apportionment of liability for a claimant's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The claimant, who had worked at various foundries including Kennedy Valve (under ITT Grinnell and later McWane Inc.) and Trinity Foundry, filed a claim after a COPD diagnosis in 2004. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and found Kennedy Valve/McWane liable. The Board subsequently apportioned liability among ITT Grinnell (71%), Trinity (28%), and Kennedy Valve/McWane (1%). Trinity and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this apportionment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant contracted COPD prior to his 1994 employment with Kennedy Valve/McWane, thus justifying the apportionment of liability among the employers.

chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCOPDworkers' compensationoccupational diseaseapportionmentfoundry workemployer liabilitymedical expert testimonyappellate reviewliability distribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Scuderi v. Mazzco Enterprises

Claimant, a union carpenter, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2010 for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which was deemed an occupational disease with a disability onset of June 25, 2010. The workers’ compensation carrier for his last employer, Mazzco Enterprises, sought to apportion liability among claimant’s previous employers, including JD Consulting LLC. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately determined the disease was contracted on August 14, 1998, and assigned 45% of the liability to JD Consulting and its carrier. JD Consulting and its carrier appealed, contending that the Board's selection of the contraction date lacked substantial evidentiary support, as the claimant could not recall the onset of symptoms and his treating physician provided no definitive opinion on the matter. The Appellate Division concurred, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the case for further proceedings due to the insufficient evidence supporting the chosen date of contraction.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zimmerman v. Quality Inn

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1993 and received workers' compensation benefits from February 1994 until July 9, 1999. These benefits were terminated due to a finding of fraud pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. Subsequently, in April 2004, the Workers’ Compensation Board discharged the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier from liability, transferring it to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1). The claimant appealed this decision, contending that it was premature and that she might be entitled to future wage replacement benefits despite the fraud finding, referencing *Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free*. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the claimant failed to timely perfect her appeal from the initial fraud finding and that *Matter of Losurdo* did not reinstate her entitlement to future benefits.

Workers' CompensationFraudBenefit TerminationCarrier LiabilitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMatter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,355 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