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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. CV-24-1279
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Howard

Claimant Michael Howard appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request to amend his claim to include bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Howard sustained multiple injuries in a 2018 assault, and his claim was later amended for various conditions. His treating physician, Ranga Krishna, diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2021, linking it to the 2018 accident. However, the carrier's consultant found a bilateral wrist sprain but no causally related carpal tunnel syndrome after examinations in 2021 and 2023, citing a lack of corroborative clinical findings despite EMG results. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board credited the carrier's consultant, denying the amendment due to insufficient credible evidence of causation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its factual determinations and assessments of medical witness credibility, which were supported by substantial evidence.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeCausation DisputeMedical Opinion ConflictCredibility of Medical WitnessesSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmanceClaim Amendment DenialBilateral Wrist InjuryElectromyography FindingsAppellant Burden of Proof
References
8
Case No. CV-24-1236
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Celso Balseca

Claimant Celso Balseca filed for workers' compensation benefits after falling off a ladder and sustaining multiple injuries. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, discrediting the claimant's testimony. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, crediting the claimant's account and establishing the claim for injuries to his neck, back, right shoulder, right elbow, both knees, and both hips. The employer and carrier appealed this ruling. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing its role as the sole judge of witness credibility and finding substantial evidence to support both the compensable accident and the causal relationship of the injuries, despite conflicting medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationLadder FallWorkplace AccidentCausationCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimLumbar Strain
References
9
Case No. CV-23-0563
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Dexter Morgan

Claimant Dexter Morgan, a warehouse associate, filed for workers\' compensation benefits alleging occupational disease due to repetitive motions causing injuries to multiple body parts. A Workers\' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim based on treating physicians\' testimony, crediting their opinions over the carrier\'s consultant. However, the Workers\' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim due to insufficient medical evidence demonstrating a causal link between Morgan\'s conditions and specific job duties, noting the treating physicians had limited knowledge of his work. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board\'s decision, finding that the Board\'s determination was supported by substantial evidence, as the medical providers\' understanding of claimant\'s specific job duties was too generalized to establish a recognizable link.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers\' Compensation BenefitsRepetitive Motion InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWarehouse AssociateNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
6
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Leonel Reyes

Claimant Leonel Reyes sustained work-related injuries in 2016, and his claim for workers' compensation benefits was established. Subsequently, the employer and its carrier raised concerns that Reyes had violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to fully disclose his private business activities as a disc jockey while collecting indemnity benefits. After multiple hearings, a WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board found that Reyes knowingly made false statements regarding the physical nature of his work and failed to disclose critical information to examining physicians. The Board imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, permanently disqualifying him from receiving future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and that the discretionary penalty was warranted given the egregious nature of the multiple misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Physical ActivityDisqualification of BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityMedical TestimonyIndemnity BenefitsFalse Statements
References
7
Case No. CV-24-1104
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Foster

Claimant sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2015 and 2019 while working for the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. His workers' compensation claims were established, and physicians disagreed on whether his permanent impairments were amenable to a nonschedule classification or a schedule loss of use award. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity and classified him with a permanent partial disability, but denied wage loss benefits due to continued pre-injury wages. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, crediting the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Shanker Krishnamurthy, who argued that a nonschedule classification was more appropriate given claimant's continued ability to work full-time despite chronic loss of function in multiple extremities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseNonschedule ClassificationAppellate ReviewMedical Opinion ConflictWage-Earning CapacityThird Judicial DepartmentOrthopedic SurgeonSubstantial EvidenceClaimant Appeal
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 18,115 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