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 Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Johansson

Karl Johansson, the appellee, sustained a job-related injury and subsequently filed a worker's compensation claim. He entered into a Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA) with the Industrial Accident Board but orally attempted to withdraw his consent before the board's approval. Despite the oral notice, the board initially approved the agreement. However, the board later set aside the CSA, citing a timely request from Johansson to withdraw consent. The appellant challenged this decision in District Court, arguing that oral notice was insufficient to void the CSA. The appellate court examined the Industrial Accident Board's explicit rule (28 Tex.Admin.Code § 55.60), which mandates written notice for withdrawal of consent, a provision amended in 1985 to emphasize the written requirement. Furthermore, Texas case law establishes that once the Board approves a settlement, it loses jurisdiction over the case. The court concluded that the oral repudiation was ineffective as it did not comply with Rule 55.60, and therefore, no effective notice of withdrawal was given. Consequently, the court found no evidence to support the trial court's findings and judgment, reversing and rendering the judgment in favor of the appellant.

Workers' CompensationCompromise Settlement AgreementOral vs. Written NoticeIndustrial Accident Board JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceAdministrative Rule InterpretationWithdrawal of ConsentTexas Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rankin v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District

Claimant, a school bus driver, suffered a work-related injury in November 2007 and filed for workers' compensation benefits in March 2008. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the claimant failed to provide timely written notice within 30 days as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Workers' Compensation Board, however, found that the claimant had given adequate oral notice and excused the failure to comply with the written notice statute, leading to the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that failure to provide timely written notice can be excused if notice could not be given, the employer had knowledge, or the employer was not prejudiced. The court credited the claimant's testimony that she verbally informed both a bus dispatcher and her supervisor shortly after the accident, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination of adequate oral notice.

Workers' Compensation Law § 18Timely NoticeOral NoticeExcused NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBus DriverWork-related InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2008

Koebel v. ew York State Comptroller

Petitioner, Rose J.E., sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from her observation and subsequent emergency duties related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied her application, citing a failure to provide timely written notice as mandated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 (c). The Supreme Court dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition, a decision that was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the petitioner's arguments that the widely-known events of 9/11, oral notice, her mental state as good cause, or an executive order suspending time limitations, satisfied or excused the notice requirement. The court found that the statute specifically requires notice of the member's injuries and incapacity, which the events of 9/11 alone would not convey. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the arguments regarding oral notice or the applicability of good cause exceptions or the Executive Order to extend the notice period.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder9/11 Terrorist AttacksTimely Written NoticeRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Good Cause ExceptionExecutive OrderWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Walker v. Greene Central School District

Claimant, an elementary school teacher, injured her knee while volunteering as a stage hand for a high school play produced by her self-insured employer. The employer contested workers' compensation benefits, citing inadequate notice under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18 and claiming the injury was not work-related. A WCLJ initially disallowed the claim due to insufficient oral notification to the play director, Margaret Smith, and delayed formal notification to the employer's account clerk. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding the oral notification to be sufficient and the employer's involvement with the play made it a covered event. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its determinations regarding notice sufficiency and the causal relationship between employment and injury.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryVoluntary ActivityNotice RequirementWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewCredibilityCausal RelationshipSelf-Insured Employer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. Simplex Grinnell LP

Plaintiff Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO (Local 669) initiated an action against Grinnell Corporation d/b/a/ Grinnell Fire Protection, sued as Simplex Grinnell LP, to enforce a 2001 collective bargaining agreement. Local 669 argued that Grinnell was bound to the agreement as a member of the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA), a multiemployer national trade association. Grinnell contended it was not bound, claiming it had timely withdrawn from NFSA before negotiations began, first orally on April 25, 2001, and subsequently by written letter on May 10, 2001. The court ruled that Grinnell's oral notice was insufficient, lacking clarity and contradicting prior deposition testimony, and the written notice was untimely as actual negotiations had already commenced on May 8, 2001. The decision was further supported by a prior NLRB ruling on an unfair labor practice charge filed by Grinnell. Consequently, the court found Grinnell bound by the 2001 agreement and granted Local 669's motion for summary judgment, ordering Grinnell to submit to arbitration.

Collective Bargaining AgreementMultiemployer Bargaining UnitWithdrawal NoticeSummary Judgment MotionArbitration DisputeLabor LawNLRB DecisionTimeliness of WithdrawalOral CommunicationWritten Communication
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 4,315 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