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 Ewing v. YMCA

Claimant, a kitchen worker, sustained a left leg injury in September 1989, leading to a schedule loss of use award in November 2001. After the last compensation payment, the claimant requested to reopen her case in October 2004, which was denied as it lacked grounds for reopening. A subsequent request in June 2005, supported by a March 2005 medical report indicating a worsened condition, led the Workers' Compensation Board to reopen the case and transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund appealed, challenging the Board's determination that the 2004 letter did not constitute a proper reopening application. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported that the 2004 letter lacked sufficient grounds for reopening, thus upholding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund based on the June 2005 request.

Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardSpecial FundMedical ReportLiability TransferAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewWorsened Condition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Korthals v. Valu Home Centers, Inc.

Claimant sustained back injuries in 2003 and 2009 while employed by Valu Home Centers, Inc. and Spectrum Human Services, respectively. A 2009 independent medical examination apportioned liability for her condition across both injuries and prior motor vehicle accidents. After claimant's 2011 back surgery, Spectrum's carrier requested further action, prompting Valu's carrier to seek a liability transfer for the 2003 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this transfer, ruling no prior request to reopen the 2003 claim existed. The Special Fund appealed, contending the 2009 medical report served as an application to reopen. The court reversed the Board's decision, determining that the medical report submitted in 2009 indeed constituted a timely application to reopen the 2003 claim, thereby preventing liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ApportionmentClaim ReopeningIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewBack InjuryPrior InjurySeven-Year Rule
References
5
Case No. 58107472
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Klouse v. City of Albany

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained multiple compensable back injuries, leading to the reopening of two 1981 cases. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially held the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, but the Board reversed, finding that a November 1987 medical report by Dr. Dominic Belmonte constituted a timely request to reopen, thus discharging the Special Fund. Reliance Insurance Company, the carrier for the 1981 cases, sought full Board review, citing lack of notice and the report's insufficiency, but the Board denied it, affirming its prior decision that the report was adequate. The employer and Reliance appealed these Board decisions to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the finding that an application to reopen was made within seven years.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesApportionment of DisabilityMedical ReportSeven-Year RuleNotice RequirementsBack InjuryInsurance Carrier LiabilityBoard ReviewAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giglio v. Fehlhaber Horn Corp.

The claimant, a 57-year-old construction worker, suffered two compensable back injuries in 1969 and 1974, leading to a finding of total permanent disability and case closure in 1977. Later, medical examinations by Drs. Foster and Mincy prompted an apportionment change but reaffirmed permanent total disability. In 1981, the claimant applied to reopen his cases based on Dr. Teresi's report suggesting permanent partial disability, which would offer financial advantages given his retirement and Social Security benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the reopening application, asserting no change in physical condition and that the prior disability determination was conclusive as it was not appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's refusal to reopen was not arbitrary or capricious, despite its misapplication of the 'law of the case' doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDisability ClassificationCase ReopeningPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceJudicial ReviewBoard DiscretionAppellate ProcedureFinancial Advantage
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2000

Claim of Davis v. T.J. Madden Construction Co.

Claimant suffered two work-related knee injuries in 1988 and 1992, leading to separate compensation cases. In April 1999, an application to reopen the 1988 case was filed, supported by a medical report indicating a change in the claimant's condition. The carrier for the 1988 case sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and requested reopening of the 1992 case. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Law Judge's decision, discharging the Special Fund from liability and placing Travelers Property Casualty (1992 carrier) back on notice. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the April 1999 medical report, despite explicitly referencing only the 1988 case, constituted sufficient notice to reopen the interconnected 1992 case within the seven-year statutory period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftStatute of LimitationsMedical Report as NoticeChange in ConditionKnee InjuryApportionmentBoard DecisionAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faison v. City of New York Department of Human Resources

The case concerns an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding liability for a claimant’s reopened case. The claimant sustained a permanent partial disability in 1991 and her case was closed in 1993. In 2001, she applied to reopen it. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently a Board panel found that the employer voluntarily made advance payments of compensation within three years of the application, thereby making the employer, not the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, liable for disability payments. The employer appealed this decision. The appellate court examined whether the employer's payment of wages, deducted from sick leave, constituted an 'advance payment of compensation' with an acknowledgment of liability. The court found that wages paid from sick leave are not advance payments of compensation, and there was no substantial evidence that the employer’s payments were made voluntarily in recognition of continuing liability. Therefore, the Board's decision was reversed, and liability was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReopened CaseAdvance Payments of CompensationSick LeaveEmployer LiabilitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRemittitur
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Labs

A claimant sustained a right hand injury in 1993, receiving workers' compensation benefits. The case was later reopened to include carpal tunnel syndrome, and then closed in 2003 regarding the right hand injury. In 2006, the case was reopened again, addressing the liability of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that liability had shifted to the Special Fund. The Special Fund appealed, contending the Board failed to rationally explain its departure from prior precedent. The appellate court agreed with the Special Fund, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesBoard PrecedentAppellate ReviewRemittalLiability ShiftSchedule Loss of UseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08061 [155 AD3d 1268]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

Matter of Whitmeyer v. Oneida County

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Claimant, Susan Whitmeyer, sustained a work-related injury in 2006. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially transferred liability to the Special Fund, but the Board modified this, finding the employer's application incomplete and that the case was improperly reopened as there was no current liability to transfer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that while the employer's application to shift liability was timely, there was no proof that further medical or indemnity benefits were payable at the time the application was submitted, which is a prerequisite for reopening. Therefore, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer of liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferAppellate Division Third DepartmentWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationCase ReopeningMedical BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Feldman v. Presbyterian Hospital

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in 1966, leading to a closed case in 1967. The case was reopened in 1980 after claimant experienced additional lost time from work in 1979 and received treatment at the employer's clinic. The primary issue was the liability of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, specifically whether payments made by the employer for clinic visits and sick leave constituted advance payments of compensation. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the discharge of the Special Fund, finding that there was an advance payment and the employer knew the lost time was due to the 1966 injury. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the employer's discretionary full reimbursement for clinic visits during working hours, even when sick leave was presumed exhausted, qualified as an advance payment. Therefore, the insurance carrier remained liable as the case was reopened within three years of the last payment.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAdvance PaymentEmployer LiabilityMedical TreatmentLost TimeSick LeaveAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aDiscretionary Payments
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2004

Belleville v. Madame Pirie's, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991 and began receiving workers' compensation benefits. After a third-party personal injury action settlement in 1994, the case was closed in October 1998 with no present deficiency for compensation payments. In 2004, the case was reopened due to a possible new causally connected injury. A WCLJ found no compensable lost time from April 1998 to July 2004, authorized medical treatment, and directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was responsible. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that the time periods specified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (8) were met due to the passage of time without compensation payment in a closed case, and no application for deficiency compensation was made upon reopening. The Special Fund appealed, and the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability ShiftWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aThird-Party SettlementBack InjuryDeficiency CompensationMedical Treatment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 674 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