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. ADJ13057590; ADJ13058223
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

HEATHER RAMOS vs. PIH HEALTH, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Applicant Heather Ramos sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) which found defendant PIH Health and Athens Administrators had provided proof of service for a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The WCJ applied the presumption of timely mailing and receipt, finding applicant failed to rebut it and was not entitled to a penalty. Applicant contended there was no valid proof of service, and defendant did not meet the burden to invoke the presumption, thus entitling her to a penalty and attorney's fees. The Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's decision, concluding that the defendant's proof of service was valid, and applicant's evidence was insufficient to overcome the mailing presumption, therefore denying reconsideration.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPresumption of ReceiptMailbox RuleProof of ServiceRebuttal EvidenceWCABPetition for ReconsiderationPenaltiesAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) was indicted on a single count of enterprise corruption under Penal Law § 460.20, based on 81 pattern acts committed by individual union officers, members, or agents. The NMDU moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence and incorrect Grand Jury instructions regarding the union's liability. The court found that while a labor union, as an unincorporated association, can be criminally liable under New York law, and enterprise corruption is an appropriate charge, the Grand Jury instructions were critically flawed. Specifically, the instructions failed to adequately define terms like 'actual participation,' 'actual authorization,' and 'ratification after actual knowledge.' Furthermore, the court determined that New York's common-law no-agency rule for unincorporated associations, as established in Martin v Curran, requires proof that every union member individually authorized or ratified the criminal acts, a more stringent standard than what was presented. The court also rejected the applicability of Labor Law § 807 (6) as a general standard for union criminal liability, as it is limited to injunctions during labor disputes, which was not the context for most of the alleged acts. Consequently, the indictment against the NMDU was dismissed, with leave for the prosecution to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Enterprise CorruptionLabor Union LiabilityGrand Jury InstructionsCriminal LawUnincorporated AssociationsPenal Law InterpretationVicarious LiabilityRacketeeringOrganized CrimeLabor Racketeering
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bitterman v. Friscos Restaurant, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the cancellation of an insurance policy. The Board initially found the Fund's cancellation failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54(5) due to a lack of a return receipt request. An amended decision modified this, citing insufficient proof of a return receipt request. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, emphasizing the strict requirement for statutory compliance in policy cancellation and the insufficiency of a mailing manifest without proof of a return receipt request. The court noted the absence of testimony establishing the Fund's office practice for proper mailing.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationCertified MailReturn ReceiptStatutory ComplianceMailing ManifestProof of MailingAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundUninsured Employers' Fund
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Upjohn Healthcare Services

The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, filed on February 8, 1983, found that the claimant satisfied the requirement of timely furnishing proof of disability to her employer under subdivision 1 of section 217 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant was disabled on October 2, 1980, and attempted to mail a disability claim form in November 1980, which was not received. A second form was mailed more than 26 weeks after the disability date. The Board interpreted "furnish" liberally and determined that the claimant had timely provided proof in November 1980 by taking reasonable steps. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Board's liberal construction of "furnish" rational and its factual finding supported by substantial evidence.

Disability BenefitsTimely NoticeProof of DisabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLiberal ConstructionEmployer NotificationInsurance Carrier Liability
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07667
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2017

Matter of Osorio v. M & L Express, Inc.

Yerly Osorio filed a workers' compensation claim for head, neck, and back injuries from a July 2014 work accident. The employer acknowledged the work-related injuries. The core issue was whether the employer's workers' compensation policy was effectively canceled prior to the accident due to nonpayment, or if it remained in effect due to the carrier's failure to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found the carrier liable, ruling that there was insufficient proof of a nexus between the cancellation notice and its mailing. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's determination unsupported by substantial evidence, as the carrier had provided uncontroverted proof of proper certified mailing of the cancellation notice. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNotice RequirementsNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ObservanceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPolicy LiabilityMailing ProofCarrier Burden of Proof
References
7
Case No. ADJ2730977 (VNO 0472204)
Regular
Dec 23, 2013

JAMES FOLLOWAY vs. ACCOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MOTEL 6, UNITED STATES FIRE & GUARANTEE INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In *Followay v. Accor North America, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's reasoning that the petition was filed 26 days after service by mail of the prior order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be *filed* (received by) the Board within 25 days, not merely mailed. Proof of mailing within the deadline is insufficient if the petition is not received within that jurisdictional timeframe.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgejurisdictionalDismissalService by mailProof of serviceFiling date
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michicich v. Curtains

The claimant sustained a foot injury on April 20, 1979, which led to partial amputation due to an underlying diabetic condition. A claim for compensation was filed with the Workers’ Compensation Board on September 16, 1981, more than two years after the alleged injury, but the claimant contended the original claim was mailed on April 16, 1981. The Board determined the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 due to lack of proof of filing within the two-year statutory period. The court reversed the Board's decision, asserting that evidence of office mailing practice creates a presumption of delivery, thus creating a factual issue regarding timely receipt. The matter is remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings on the issue of timely mailing and filing.

Workers' Compensation AppealTimeliness of ClaimStatute of LimitationsMailing PresumptionFiling RequirementsDiabetic ConditionFoot InjuryPartial AmputationBoard Decision ReversalRemitted Case
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,833 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