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
Apr 26, 2005

In re the Claim of Abramson

Claimant, an accountant placed by Staff Plus, Inc. at Goldman Sachs, was denied extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Staff Plus was his base period employer, making him ineligible because Staff Plus was not a provider of services to an air carrier. An initial appeal led to remittal for further record development regarding the relationship between Staff Plus and the claimant. After re-evaluation, the Board reiterated its decision, finding a clear employment relationship between claimant and Staff Plus, which was supported by the evidence. The court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the denial of TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-ATemporary Employment AgencyEmployment RelationshipBase Period EmployerDisplaced Airline-Related WorkersEligibility for BenefitsAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Law
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

In re the Claim of Franklin

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 15, 1995, which deemed her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to insufficient weeks of covered employment during her base period. The claimant argued for backdating her claim to May 1, 1995, citing employer unresponsiveness. However, a prior written statement indicated the delay was due to seeking additional workers' compensation disability benefits. The Board credited this statement over the claimant's testimony. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision and affirmed it without costs.

Unemployment InsuranceBenefits EligibilityBackdating ClaimMaternity LeaveDisability LeaveCovered EmploymentBase PeriodWorkers' CompensationAppeal Board DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Braband

Claimant resigned from her employment due to alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor. Initially, she was denied unemployment insurance benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. The Administrative Law Judge upheld this determination, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling her entitled to benefits. The employer appealed, arguing the Board erred in substituting its judgment without further hearings and that there was insufficient evidence of sexual harassment. The court found no error in the Board's procedure, citing Labor Law § 621 (3), and determined that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision to credit the claimant's testimony regarding sexual harassment. The decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment BenefitsSexual HarassmentVoluntary ResignationGood CauseAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationLabor LawJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. 534802
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars sustained a right knee injury in January 2017, leading to a workers' compensation claim where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 66.67% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) reduced the SLU to 20%, asserting that the physicians' opinions were inconsistent with impairment guidelines and based on inapplicable special considerations. On appeal, the Appellate Division found the Board's decision could not be sustained because its assessment of the medical evidence, specifically concerning Dr. Thomas DiBenedetto's independent medical examination (IME) report, was inaccurate. The Board erroneously claimed DiBenedetto found 110 degrees of flexion and applied special considerations, whereas his report documented 90 degrees of flexion and no such considerations. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing the Board to accurately re-assess the medical evidence and determine anew the claim's amenability to classification or SLU, and the resulting degree of disability.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalImpairment GuidelinesConflicting Medical OpinionsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Factual Questions
References
14
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Walter

In 1980, the claimant was laid off from Columbia Rope Company and received unemployment and trade readjustment allowance (TRA) benefits before returning to work. After the company closed in 1982, he again filed for unemployment and TRA benefits. The Commissioner of Labor determined his TRA eligibility commenced 52 weeks after his initial claim in May 1980, deeming him ineligible after May 1982. The Board, however, ruled that eligibility should be based on the most recent claim in June 1982. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, should be liberally construed and that Congress did not intend to abandon the 'most recent' separation date for TRA eligibility. The court also noted that the 1981 amendments were not retroactive to the claimant's initial 1980 claim.

Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment BenefitsStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981Eligibility PeriodMost Recent ClaimFirst Claim RuleRemedial PurposeAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1979

In re the Claim of Jones v. John W. Cowper Co.

On April 26, 1973, the claimant sustained a work-related accident, with an initial employer's report specifying only a left foot injury. Four years later, on May 17, 1977, the claimant filed a compensation claim for injuries to his left ankle and back. While the original foot injury claim was not contested, the claim for the back injury was due to untimely notice. A referee initially allowed the foot injury claim but disallowed the back injury claim on March 5, 1979, due to lack of timely notice. The Workers’ Compensation Board, on December 27, 1979, modified this decision, finding that notice and causal connection for the back condition were established. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which bars claims not filed within two years of the accident. The court concluded that the Board lacked the power to amend a claim after two years to include an unrelated condition. The matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Timely NoticeClaim AmendmentStatute of LimitationsBack Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision ReversalRemittalWork-Related InjuryFoot InjuryJudicial Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 21,618 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