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

Mazzarella v. Cutting

The employer, Charles Cutting, and his workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had denied the carrier's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the carrier's failure to file the prescribed form C-251.3 prior to the award of compensation. The carrier argued that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) nor § 15 (8) (Z) explicitly required this specific form and that their timely filing of form C-251.2 provided notice to the Fund. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that 12 NYCRR 300.5 (e) mandates claims for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) to be filed on a chair-prescribed form, which was C-251.3. The court reiterated the Board Chair’s authority to issue regulations and forms, and the Board’s right to insist on strict adherence to these requirements, deeming the argument regarding lack of prejudice to the Fund irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementSpecial Disability FundForm C-251.3Form C-251.2Regulation AdherenceBoard Chair AuthorityAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Claims
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04217
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Mayers v. Frito Lay

Cynthia Mayers, a warehouse worker, sustained a work-related back injury in September 2002 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Her employer, Frito Lay, and its workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, filing a C-250 form. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately rejected the reimbursement claim, citing an inadequately completed C-250 form and the non-binding nature of a pretrial conference sheet due to lack of Board approval. The carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to prescribed forms for reimbursement claims and confirming that the pretrial conference sheet was not preclusive without Board approval.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundC-250 FormReimbursement ClaimPretrial ConferenceBoard ApprovalAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureClaimant RightsEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEDICAL ECONOMICS CO. v. Prescribing Reference, Inc.

This memorandum opinion and order addresses Prescribing Reference Incorporated's (PRI) motion for a preliminary injunction against Medical Economics Company and ME Licensing Corporation (MEC). PRI sought to prevent MEC from using the title 'PDR Monthly Prescribing Guide,' alleging trademark infringement and irreparable harm. The Court denied PRI's motion, concluding that PRI did not adequately demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, noting the lack of concrete evidence for shifting advertising revenue or actual consumer confusion. Furthermore, the Court assessed PRI's likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claim as weak, considering the descriptive nature of PRI's mark, MEC's use of its well-known 'PDR' house mark, and the sophistication of the target audience, medical professionals.

Preliminary InjunctionTrademark InfringementIrreparable HarmLikelihood of ConfusionDescriptive TrademarksHouse MarksConsumer SophisticationHealthcare PublicationsTrademark StrengthInjunctive Relief
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Vinovrski v. Innovative Chemical Corp.

The claimant sustained a work-related injury in November 2001, which led to an established claim for various conditions including regional pain syndrome and depression. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) due to a prior knee injury. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability, finding the carrier's reimbursement form deficient. The carrier appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the requirement for strict adherence to the prescribed use and content of reimbursement forms.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimForm DeficiencyAppellate ReviewPrior Physical ImpairmentStrict ComplianceWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05740 [174 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Presida v. Health Quest Sys., Inc.

Claimant Oprah Presida sustained a work-related injury to her right knee, which was later amended to include a causally-related lower back injury, and a total knee replacement was authorized. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The Board denied this application, finding it defective for not complying with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b)(1), which requires applications to be completely filled out on Form RB-89 without merely referring to attached documents. The carrier appealed this denial, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application due to the carrier's failure to provide complete responses on the prescribed form.

Appellate ReviewApplication for Board ReviewProcedural ComplianceForm RB-89Administrative LawDenial of ApplicationArbitrary and Capricious StandardJudiciary Law § 431Work-Related InjuryKnee Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. ADJ7960157 (RDG 0095395) ADJ4276340
Regular
Apr 03, 2013

DAVID SANDROCK vs. INDEPENDENT BUSINESS FORMS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Independent Business Forms, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this reconsideration. The Board intends to further study the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

SandrockIndependent Business FormsPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyADJ7960157ADJ4276340ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRedding District OfficeSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ4276340 RDG 0095395 ADJ7960157
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

David Sandrock vs. Independent Business Forms, Inc., Preferred Employers Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision regarding David Sandrock's cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB found that Sandrock's cumulative trauma injury ending July 28, 2006, is not presumptively compensable because no claim form was filed with the employer, as required by Labor Code sections 5401 and 5402. The Board determined that the insurer, Preferred Employers, did not violate due process by submitting the case on briefs at a conference. The WCAB deferred the issue of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderCumulative TraumaPresumptive CompensabilityClaim Form90-Day Investigation PeriodDue ProcessIndustrial InjuryAOE/COE
References
1
Case No. ADJ6743994
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

STANLEY HOLDER vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's. The WCAB found the applicant's heart condition to be industrially caused based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5, overriding the AME's fluctuating opinion. Permanent disability was increased from 4% to 20% and apportionment was disallowed under Labor Code section 4663(e). Finally, the defendant was denied a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658 because they failed to strictly prove an offer of regular work in the statutorily prescribed form and manner.

Industrial injuryDeputy SheriffCirculatory systemHeart diseasePermanent disabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.5Heart trouble presumption
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07648 [189 AD3d 1870]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Connors v. Yonkers Contr. Co.

William Connors, the claimant, suffered work-related injuries in 2006. In 2017, his employer and its carrier, Yonkers Contracting Company, requested the WCLJ to direct Connors to be weaned from opioid medications, but this was denied. The carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application was denied for being filed on an outdated RB-89 form, violating 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the application due to the carrier's non-compliance with the prescribed formatting requirements for Board review.

Workers' CompensationOpioid WeaningAdministrative ReviewRB-89 FormProcedural ComplianceBoard Review ApplicationForm RequirementsAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentWCLJ Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 635 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