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

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Norcross v. Camden Central School

This case involves an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling that shifted liability to the Special Fund under WCL § 25-a, regarding a claimant's work-related injury from 2001. The Special Fund contended that the Board's decision deviated from its own precedent by shifting liability without requiring proof that further medical or indemnity benefits were payable, which is a necessary condition for reopening a claim for this purpose. The court determined that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its prior decisions, thereby rendering its determination arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftAgency PrecedentRational ExplanationArbitrary and CapriciousRFA-2 formMedical BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsAppellate DivisionRemittal
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 Porter v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

The claimant, who sustained head, neck, and back injuries in 2004, had a workers' compensation case established for occupational disease, with 22.5% liability for neck and back injuries apportioned to the incident. After experiencing continued back problems and being diagnosed with severe biforaminal stenosis, the Chair authorized an MRI in 2010 and lumbar spine surgery in 2011. The workers’ compensation carrier sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, a request initially denied by a WCLJ but granted by the Board, which found the April 27, 2011 order authorizing surgery constituted a 'true closing' of the case. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the transfer of liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the case was truly closed, thereby shifting liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftClosed CaseTrue ClosingMedical AuthorizationLumbar Spine SurgeryCervical Spine MRIOccupational DiseaseApportionment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2013

Claim of Pankiw v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Claimant, who suffered work-related injuries in 2004, had a 20% schedule loss of use of his left arm opined in 2007, and a consequential right shoulder injury was added in 2008 with a 30% schedule loss of use, for which the Special Fund became liable. In 2011, claimant sought further action, leading a WCLJ to transfer liability to the Special Fund. However, the Board reversed, finding the case was not "truly closed" because the issue of the left arm injury remained unaddressed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the lack of resolution on the left arm injury meant further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being deemed truly closed for liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseConsequential InjuryCase ClosureLiability ShiftAppellate DivisionFactual DeterminationCompensation PaymentsUnaddressed Issues
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Strujan v. New York Hospital

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant's 1997 work-related injury. A claim for consequential psychiatric injuries was denied in 2010, and the employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. While a WCLJ initially granted this transfer, the Board reversed, concluding the case was not 'truly closed' due to unresolved issues, including the claimant's alleged migraines. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the case was not truly closed, thereby preventing the shift of liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesTrue ClosureLiability ShiftMigrainesPsychiatric InjuryConsequential InjuryBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Palazzolo v. Dutchess County

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left arm in July 2000. Although no lost wages were claimed initially, diagnostic tests were authorized, and issues of permanency and average weekly wages remained unresolved, with a directive for the employer to provide payroll records. In 2013, after claimant sought further medical treatment, the employer requested to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing the statutory time limits had elapsed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, finding the case was never truly closed due to outstanding issues and unfulfilled directives. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being considered truly closed for the purpose of shifting liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferCase ClosureOutstanding IssuesPermanency DeterminationAverage Weekly WagesPayroll RecordsAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
7
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

Matter of Greey v. Yaphank Fire Department

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained work-related injuries in December 2005. Her workers' compensation claim was established but marked for no further action as she incurred no compensable lost time. In September 2013, the employer requested to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing that more than seven years had passed since the injury and three years since the last payment of compensation. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding the case improperly reopened and lacking proof of current liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that in the absence of proof of further medical or indemnity benefits payable, and with the claimant's affidavit attesting to no claims for reduced earnings, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer of liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability TransferVolunteer FirefighterMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsSeven Year RuleThree Year RuleAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1988

Drew v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

Plaintiff was injured when a skyworker or bucket hoist collapsed while he was performing elevated work for his employer at property owned by defendant Rockwell International Corporation. Plaintiff's complaint included a cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1), and he moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under this statute. The court found that a skyworker, although not specifically listed, is functionally similar to devices covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The collapse of the safety device established a prima facie statutory violation and proximate cause, shifting the burden to the defendant. The court determined that a design or manufacturing defect causing a safety device to collapse results in absolute liability for the owner. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted and, as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawAbsolute LiabilitySkyworker CollapseSafety Device FailureProximate CauseSummary JudgmentDesign DefectManufacturing DefectElevated Work
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 5,452 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