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

Abramo v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

Charles N. Abramo, the plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling due to a grip tab on a truck manufactured by Navistar International Transportation Corp. Navistar had prior knowledge of similar complaints and had redesigned the grip tab in later models, but no recall notices were issued for the specific truck involved. Plaintiffs sought to compel Navistar to produce recall notices for unrelated truck components and allow depositions of additional employees. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, stating that unrelated recall notices are not discoverable and that the staff engineer demonstrated sufficient knowledge, justifying the refusal for additional depositions.

Product LiabilityDiscovery DisputeRecall NoticesPretrial DepositionsTruck DefectGrip TabAppellate ReviewUnanimous DecisionSupreme Court OrderEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Johnson v. T.L. Cannon Management

Claimant, a broiler cook, allegedly sustained a work-related injury in February 2012 but delayed applying for workers' compensation benefits until April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, citing claimant's failure to provide timely notice to the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Court upheld the Board's determination, finding no grounds to overturn it. The Court emphasized the requirement for timely written notice of injury within 30 days, noting that while exceptions exist, excusing such failures remains within the Board's discretion, and the 14-month delay, coupled with the supervisor's lack of recall regarding an injury report, supported the Board's findings.

Workers’ CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident ReportingCredibility DeterminationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimAdministrative AppealWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1997

Mark v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, an order which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial. The petitioners failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for their almost six-month delay beyond the 90-day statutorily-prescribed period. Additionally, the petitioners did not provide the respondents with actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within the required timeframe. The court noted that the conditions at the accident scene changed to the prejudice of the respondents, preventing their own investigation, and the ladder involved was allegedly discarded immediately after the incident. Filing a Workers’ Compensation claim was also deemed insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e.

late notice of claimjudicial discretionactual noticeprejudice to respondentchanged conditionsWorkers’ Compensation claimappellate reviewstatutory periodKings Countymunicipal liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acevedo v. City of New York

Petitioners, 110 New York City firefighters involved in World Trade Center rescue efforts after 9/11, sought permission to file late notices of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e due to toxin exposure and subsequent respiratory illnesses. The City of New York objected, citing improper joinder of claims and lack of reasonable excuse or actual notice. The court found that common questions of law and fact allowed for joinder of the claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts surrounding the claims due to public awareness, extensive investigations, and internal Fire Department medical examinations, thus suffering no prejudice from the delayed filing. Consequently, the petition was granted, allowing the firefighters to serve and file their late notices of claim.

World Trade Center9/11FirefightersLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawRespiratory IllnessToxic ExposureJoinder of ClaimsActual NoticePrejudice
References
20
Case No. ADJ8449286
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

DAVID SIRES vs. CONQUIP, INC., SENTRY SELECT

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, specifically challenging the attorney's fee amount. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a procedural defect: the applicant's attorney failed to provide proof of notice to the applicant regarding the requested fee increase, as required by WCAB Rule 10778. The Board issued a notice of intention to dismiss the fee request unless the attorney promptly provides this proof of notice. The Board has deferred judgment on other issues raised in the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney's FeeElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)WCAB Rule 10778Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT)Adverse Interest
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,127 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