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

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05568 [209 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Koratzanis v. U.S. Concrete, Inc.

Claimant John Koratzanis, a concrete mixer truck driver, sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and subsequently filed a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, contending that Koratzanis failed to disclose his activities of authoring and self-publishing books on Amazon while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty, but declined to impose a discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision with minor corrections to the mandatory penalty dates. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination regarding the mandatory penalty duration was supported by substantial evidence and that its decision not to impose a discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyUndisclosed ActivitiesSelf-PublicationBenefit DisqualificationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionOverpayment Credit
References
8
Case No. CV-23-2275
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffery DeBryne

Claimant Jeffery DeBryne, classified as permanently totally disabled due to work-related injuries, was alleged to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by providing an estimate for a home improvement project while wearing a company logo. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a § 114-a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty and a six-month discretionary disqualification. On appeal, the Board conceded the mandatory penalty's effective date should be April 6, 2022, not October 12, 2022. The primary issue for the Appellate Division was whether the Board abused its discretion by not imposing a permanent disqualification. The Court found the Board's reasoning, based on the absence of observed "actual work" by the claimant, to be cogent and upheld the six-month discretionary penalty, modifying only the effective date of the mandatory penalty and remitting for further proceedings.

FraudDisability BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aPermanent DisqualificationSurveillance ReportHome Improvement ProjectRemitted
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2007

Laverghetta v. Tug Edge Dairy

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a ruling that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier improperly suspended claimant’s benefits and imposed a penalty. The claimant had established a work-related injury to her hand in 2003. The carrier suspended payments in April 2006 without following proper procedures, arguing justification under 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) based on an exception for no disability. However, the Board found the carrier's relied-upon November 2003 C-4 report insufficient, noting conflicting medical opinions within the report and from a subsequent independent medical examiner. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the evidence did not trigger the exception and that the mandatory penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) was properly imposed due to the carrier's failure to make timely payments.

Workers' CompensationBenefit SuspensionPenalty ImpositionMedical EvidenceDisability AssessmentProcedural ComplianceAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawCarrier LiabilityDue Process
References
4
Case No. 533960
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of John Koratzanis

Claimant John Koratzanis sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and filed for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Koratzanis failed to disclose authoring and self-publishing books while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, only correcting typographical errors and clarifying penalty dates. The carrier appealed, seeking an earlier start date for the mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the penalty duration and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining a discretionary penalty.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationUndisclosed EmploymentMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPublishing Income Disclosure
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05362 [208 AD3d 1565]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

Matter of Sausto v. Wildlife Conservation Socy.

Claimant Frank P. Sausto was injured while working and received workers' compensation benefits. He was found to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for making material misrepresentations concerning his work activities with his custom knife business, FS Blades, while collecting total disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, imposing only a mandatory penalty for a specified period and finding a discretionary penalty unwarranted due to the claimant's disclosures and forthright testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's modification, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and its decision regarding the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Work ActivitiesDisability BenefitsMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation LawCredibility Assessment
References
10
Case No. 533663
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Giglia

Claimant Peter Giglia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making misrepresentations on work activity reports. Giglia failed to disclose side jobs he performed while receiving benefits between September 7, 2018, and May 16, 2019. The Board assessed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including forfeiture of benefits and permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a violation and the discretionary penalty but modified the mandatory penalty, specifying that benefits should be rescinded only from September 7, 2018, to April 29, 2019, rather than the entire period of lost wages.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltiesAppellate DivisionFalse StatementWork Activity ReportsForfeitureDisqualification
References
11
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01414 [236 AD3d 1165]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Matter of DeBryne v. Pittsford Mercury, Inc.

Claimant Jeffery DeBryne, classified as permanently totally disabled due to work-related injuries, was found by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for operating a business and providing a home improvement estimate while denying for-profit activity. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the finding and the imposition of a mandatory penalty and a six-month discretionary disqualification. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's discretionary penalty, finding no abuse of discretion given the Board's rationale that no actual work was observed. However, the court modified the decision regarding the effective date of the mandatory penalty, remitting that aspect for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aDisability Benefits FraudPermanent Total DisabilityMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Division ReviewSurveillance EvidenceHome Improvement ActivityEgregious Deception
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06001 [187 AD3d 1398]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2020

Matter of Conliffe v. Darden Rest.

Kathryn J. Conliffe, a bartender, filed a workers' compensation claim after hitting her head in March 2017, leading to a concussion and anxiety. She subsequently received disability benefits. In June 2018, an employer-retained physician found she could work with light-duty restrictions. A social media investigation later revealed Conliffe was selling LuLaRoe clothing and other crafts online while receiving benefits, which she had not disclosed. The Workers' Compensation Board found a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, imposing a mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification. Conliffe appealed, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the violation and mandatory penalty but reversed the permanent disqualification, deeming it disproportionate given her forthrightness when questioned and her decision not to cash benefit checks after resuming part-time work.

Workers' CompensationFalse StatementMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsFraudAppellate ReviewPenaltySocial Media InvestigationEarning CapacityIndependent Consultant
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,520 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