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

Nuara v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, two terminated group self-insured trusts (GSITs), challenged monetary assessments levied against them by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board and its chairman. The assessments were imposed pursuant to various sections of the Workers’ Compensation Law, utilizing a "pure premium calculation" method established by 2007 amendments. The court considered new 2008 legislation that further amended the calculation method for ceased self-insurers but declined to apply it retroactively. Ultimately, the court found the Board's interpretation of "the preceding year" in its pure premium calculation for terminated GSITs to be unreasonable and contrary to the clear statutory language. Consequently, the levied assessments were annulled and vacated.

Group Self-Insured TrustsMonetary AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationPure Premium CalculationAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78Legislative IntentStatutory ConstructionSelf-Insurance Liabilities
References
19
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cedeno v. Pacoa

The Workers' Compensation Board assessed a $500 monetary penalty against claimant's counsel for an unsubstantiated request to change the hearing venue from Queens/Nassau to White Plains, Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially assessed $250. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support for the assessment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The court ruled that the Board had authority to increase the penalty and overlooked a procedural defect regarding who filed the appeal, treating it as filed by counsel.

Workers' CompensationVenue ChangeCounsel FeesMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural MotionUnpreserved ArgumentSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Authority
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. New York City Department of Human Resources Administration

Claimant received workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries and settled a third-party action for $725,000. The employer and carrier consented, expecting satisfaction of their lien and a future credit. Claimant sought reimbursement for legal expenses, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) declined an award without a closing statement. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision and assessed a $500 penalty against claimant’s counsel for pursuing proceedings without reasonable grounds. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported the counsel fee assessment because the application for Board review was unnecessary given the requirement for a signed closing statement.

Workers' Compensation LawMonetary PenaltyCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementCarrier's CreditLien SatisfactionLegal Expenses ReimbursementClosing Statement RequirementBoard ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burroughs v. Empire State Agricultural Compensation Trust

Claimant, a dairy farmer, sustained work-related injuries in November 2001 when he fell from a ladder. A claim for workers’ compensation benefits was filed, which the carrier controverted, disputing claimant's employee status. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the employer was a limited liability corporation and claimant was an executive officer, thus covered under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ’s findings. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the record was insufficient to establish the employer’s true status or claimant’s relationship to it, and remitted the matter for further development of the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusLimited Liability CorporationExecutive OfficerCoverage DisputeAppellate ReviewRemittalRecord DevelopmentNew York Workers' Compensation LawDairy Farmer
References
2
Case No.
Regular
Oct 29, 2009

TONY PACHECO, ANDREW ARMIJO, MARTHA MARIN, JOSE CONTRERAS, PERRY LOFTON, VITALINO AJVIX, MARTHA HERNANDEZ vs. GLOBAL WIRELESS, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CUTTING EDGE SUPPLY COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AVEC SERVEALL; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GEHR INDUSTRIES, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AMERICAN METAL RECYCLING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STRICTLY WHOLESALE ADA KENDALL SIGN; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Appeals Board issued an Order consolidating cases and a notice of intention (NIT) to impose monetary sanctions on CMS Network, Inc. and its representatives for misstatements of law. A hearing is set for November 18, 2009.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonetary SanctionsNotice of Intention (NIT)Petitions for ReconsiderationMisstatements of LawGood CauseHearingObjectionAttorney ServiceRecusal
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & G Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board

This court case addresses whether an arbitrator's decision, upholding a 'just cause' discharge of an employee after a compensable accident, prevents the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) from hearing a claim of discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The court ruled that such an arbitration decision does not preclude the WCB, emphasizing the overriding public policy to have retaliatory discharge claims determined by the WCB as the statutorily mandated exclusive forum. It distinguishes between a contractual just cause discharge and a discriminatory firing, noting that the former could be a pretext for the latter. The court denied the petition to preclude the WCB, asserting that the public policy underlying Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 takes precedence over issue preclusion principles. It also suggests that the WCB can consider arbitration decisions as persuasive evidence but not conclusive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Discriminatory DischargeRetaliatory FiringIssue PreclusionArbitration AwardPublic PolicyWCB JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Just Cause DischargeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 21,086 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