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. 533556
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Alastair Kennedy

Claimant, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site. He initially filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were accepted for left foot and ankle injuries. He later alleged neck and left shoulder injuries, which the carrier contested, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation due to alleged misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant's testimony not credible regarding the accident and prior injuries, disallowed the neck and shoulder claims, and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties under § 114-a. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision to disallow the claims for neck and shoulder injuries and upheld the mandatory penalty for misrepresentation, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court reversed the imposition of the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, thereby modifying the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuriesCredibility DeterminationMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
16
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. 533960
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of John Koratzanis

Claimant John Koratzanis sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and filed for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Koratzanis failed to disclose authoring and self-publishing books while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, only correcting typographical errors and clarifying penalty dates. The carrier appealed, seeking an earlier start date for the mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the penalty duration and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining a discretionary penalty.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationUndisclosed EmploymentMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPublishing Income Disclosure
References
12
Case No. 529802
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Sandra Anthony

Claimant Sandra Anthony injured her right wrist while taping drywall at a construction site and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, naming AB Hill Enterprises, LLC as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining an employer-employee relationship existed and holding Dani's Builders, the general contractor, responsible for awards due to AB Hill's lack of coverage, also imposing a $5,000 penalty on AB Hill. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. AB Hill appealed, arguing it was not a "contractor" under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act and thus not obligated to maintain workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported AB Hill's classification as a contractor and employer under the Act, and upheld the penalty.

construction industryworkers' compensation lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor classificationstatutory presumptionConstruction Industry Fair Play Actsubcontractor liabilitypenalty assessmentinsurance requirementsAppellate Division decision
References
8
Case No. CV-23-2004
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Cabrera

Joseph Cabrera, the claimant, established a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries in 2022 and was classified with a permanent partial disability. The self-insured employer, New York City Housing Authority, failed to make timely compensation payments, leading to a late payment penalty imposed by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). Claimant's counsel sought fees for securing this penalty, but the WCLJ denied the application, a decision later affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board found that recent amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 24 do not provide for additional counsel fees based on the assessment of a late payment penalty. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing prior precedent from Matter of Gonzalez v Northeast Parent & Child Socy., which established that counsel is not entitled to additional fees for securing late payment penalties.

Workers' Compensation LawCounsel FeesLate Payment PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Board AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate DivisionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationSelf-Insured EmployerProcedural Error
References
4
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. CV-22-1903
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ricardo Yolas

Ricardo Yolas, a car inspector and mechanic, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Yolas's claim for work-related injuries was established, but the self-insured employer alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical condition during a permanency evaluation and failing to disclose post-retirement work activity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that Yolas deliberately misrepresented his condition and continued to work while collecting benefits, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty permanently disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and that the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion given the egregious nature of the misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent misrepresentationIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Undisclosed work activityPermanent disqualificationIndemnity benefitsSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Substantial evidenceAbuse of discretionAppellate review
References
12
Case No. 536034 CV-22-2074
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Hillary Newman

Claimant Hillary Newman established a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in 2016. In 2017, she suffered an intervening accident which she failed to disclose in an independent medical examination (IME) questionnaire in April 2018, despite reporting it to her treating physician who documented it in an October 2017 report. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board found a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making a false statement and imposed a mandatory penalty. The Board's initial decision was affirmed, but an amended decision later rescinded the discretionary penalty. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, modified the duration of the mandatory penalty, ruling it should extend only until June 11, 2018, when the treating physician's report disclosing the intervening accident was filed with the Board, rather than until April 9, 2021.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentation of FactIntervening AccidentIME QuestionnaireMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyMedical Report FilingCredibility IssueSubstantial Evidence
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 18,204 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