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 Parmenter v. New York Telephone Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board excused the claimant's failure to give timely notice of an ankle injury sustained on October 16, 1979. The claimant notified her employer on November 26, 1979, after receiving medical treatment. The board found that notice was given as soon as the claimant became aware of the nature and extent of her injury. Additionally, the employer had actual knowledge of the injury due to the claimant's obvious disability, causing no prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support its findings.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAnkle InjuryBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceExcused Failure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Place v. Beekmantown Central School District

This case involves an appeal by respondents (Cumberland Head Elementary School, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Beekmantown Central School District, and Board of Education) against a Supreme Court decision granting a petitioner (guardian ad litem for Child Doe) leave to file a late notice of claim. The child, who had been sexually abused by his stepfather, had reported the abuse to school personnel in 2004 and 2006, but appropriate authorities were not notified until mid-2007. The stepfather was subsequently convicted in March 2008. The Court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the respondents had timely knowledge of the essential facts, the delay was excusable due to the child's age and distress, and there was no significant prejudice to the respondents. The Court also found that the petitioner had established a meritorious cause of action against the school and that the claim against DSS was not patently meritless given the limited record.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseGuardian ad LitemLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawEducation LawSocial Services LawSchool LiabilityDSS LiabilityStatute of Limitations
References
5
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merendino v. Village of Pawling

Dutchess County, a self-insured employer, appealed decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had barred the county from contesting employer-employee relationship, accidental injury, and accident arising out of employment due to a failure to file a timely notice of controversy under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b). The Board’s decision was based on the premise that a corrected notice of indexing was mailed to the county on August 30, 1984. However, the court found insufficient proof in the record to support the finding that the notice was actually mailed, as the testimony did not establish a regularly followed office procedure designed to ensure proper addressing and mailing. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings to consider the merits of the county’s objections.

Workers' Compensation LawNotice of ControversyProof of MailingRebuttable PresumptionAdministrative ProcedureAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccidental InjuryStatutory Bar
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Oswego City School District

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the claimant's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the respondent, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the claimant failed to establish that the respondent had actual knowledge of the claim's essential facts within the required 90-day period. Furthermore, the claimant's excuses for the delay, including unawareness of injury severity and issues with Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) responses, were deemed unreasonable. The court also concluded that the claimant did not demonstrate that the late notice would not substantially prejudice the respondent's ability to investigate and defend the claim, thus finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the application.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law violationsActual knowledgePrejudiceEquitable estoppelAppellate reviewJudicial discretionAccident reportFOIL requests
References
24
Case No. ADJ12768897
Regular
Jun 16, 2025

LUCIANO GONZALEZ MENDOZA vs. CARROL AND STRONG BUILDERS, PEDRO PILLAR LOPEZ, SOUTHEAST PESONNEL LEASING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant PL Construction/Pedro Lopez sought reconsideration of a March 24, 2025 Findings and Order by a workers' compensation arbitrator that found them uninsured for an injury to Luciano Gonzalez Mendoza. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, citing insufficient notice of case transmission to the parties and an incomplete arbitration record. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter for further proceedings if a complete record is not filed within thirty days.

Petition for ReconsiderationRescind Arbitrator's DecisionInsufficient EvidenceUninsured StatusAmbiguity in CoverageImplied-in-Fact ContractEstoppelPublic PolicyLabor Code § 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1992

Thousand v. Human Resources Administration

The case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a death benefits claim. The claimant’s decedent, Marion Holmes-Thousand, suffered a fatal heart attack at work in 1984, and a claim was filed two years later, exceeding the 30-day notice requirement. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board excused the late notice, finding the employer, Neighborhood Action Board #2, and its insurer, Zurich Insurance Company, were not prejudiced. Zurich appealed this decision, arguing it was prejudiced by the delay and inability to investigate or file a claim under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (e). The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported excusing the late notice due to the employer’s actual knowledge of the death and Zurich’s failure to demonstrate actual prejudice despite opportunities for investigation.

Late NoticeExcused DelayEmployer PrejudiceFatal Heart AttackWork-Related InjuryDeath Benefits ClaimInsurance Carrier LiabilityBoard Decision AffirmationAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 24,340 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