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
Jan 08, 2002

Claim of Palma v. New York City Department of Corrections

The claimant, a Vietnam veteran and former correction officer, sustained injuries in 1975 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. His case was later reopened to address consequential posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board attributed his PTSD to his Vietnam service, not his employment assault. Claimant's subsequent application for a rehearing and/or reopening of the claim, based on new psychiatric reports from 1999 and 2000, was denied by the Board on January 8, 2002. The Board concluded that the claimant failed to demonstrate the medical evidence was unavailable earlier or indicated a change in his psychiatric condition. This appeal challenged the Board's denial of the rehearing application, rather than the underlying PTSD claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial of the application.

Workers' CompensationAppealRehearingReopening ClaimPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Correction OfficerVietnam VeteranMedical EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
3
Case No. SDO 360686
Regular
Jun 22, 2008

HANK MOORE vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for rehearing regarding Hank Moore's disability retirement. The Board found the County's arguments regarding the timeliness of their petition and the introduction of newly discovered medical evidence unpersuasive. The existing evidence, particularly from Dr. Esch, sufficiently supported the finding that Mr. Moore's disability was industrially caused.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalPERS disability retirementdeputy sheriffindustrial injurypermanent disabilityGovernment Code section 21166petition for rehearingnewly discovered evidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorOfficial Address Record
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Motorists Insurance v. Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital

The petitioner, American Motorists, a workers' compensation insurance carrier, sought to vacate an award from a medical arbitration panel. The core dispute involved the proper reimbursement rate for inpatient services provided by Crouse-Irving hospital to a workers' compensation claimant. While an initial panel favored the carrier, a subsequent rehearing led to a second panel awarding the hospital its full requested charges. The court addressed the procedural validity of the rehearing and then examined the substantive argument concerning the hospital's billing practices under Public Health Law. Ultimately, the court found that the Board had the authority to order a rehearing and that the hospital's charges, though higher than prior fee schedules, were sufficiently regulated by state law, thereby granting the motion to confirm the arbitration award.

Arbitration reviewWorkers' CompensationHospital billingPublic Health LawFee disputeReimbursement ratesMedical arbitration panelJudicial reviewStatutory interpretationNew York law
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00169 [168 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2019

Matter of Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgt.

Claimant Rosalind M. Villagra sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury sustained at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence. Subsequently, claimant filed an application for Board review, requesting a rehearing or reopening of her claim, arguing the WCLJ's decision was inconsistent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, deeming it an untimely appeal from the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board applied an incorrect statutory framework and should have evaluated the application as one for rehearing or reopening.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of AppealApplication for RehearingReopening of ClaimPrima Facie Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory FrameworkProcedural ErrorRemittal to Board
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 09217
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Matter of Szokalski v. A-Val Architectural Metal Corp.

Claimant Roman Szokalski, a construction worker for A-Val Architectural Metal Corporation, filed a workers' compensation claim for a repetitive stress injury to his back and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and identified Arch Insurance Company as the responsible carrier. Arch's subsequent application to the Workers' Compensation Board for review or a rehearing was denied due to its untimeliness and failure to provide an excuse for not appearing at prior hearings. Arch appealed this denial. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing to consider the untimely review request or grant a rehearing.

Workers' CompensationRepetitive Stress InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeUntimely ApplicationRehearing DenialWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewAppellate DivisionInsurance Carrier LiabilityFailure to AppearJudicial Discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2000

Claim of Velasquez v. Tony's Taxi, Inc.

The case is an appeal brought by Tony's Taxi, Inc. against a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had deemed Tony's Taxi's applications for review and rehearing of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) rulings as untimely. The WCLJ initially established an employer/employee relationship between Tony's Taxi and the claimant, and subsequently penalized Tony's Taxi for being uninsured. Tony's Taxi contended that the lack of the claimant's tax returns negated the employment proof and that the Board erred in its timeliness determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in denying the rehearing application due to a lack of new evidence and upholding the dismissal of the review application as untimely.

timelinessemployer-employee relationshipuninsured employerpenalty assessmentrehearing applicationappellate reviewadministrative lawprocedural errorevidence admissibilitytax return requirement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2010

Ball v. Astrue

Plaintiff Lucinda M. Ball sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying her Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended denying the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanding the case for a rehearing. District Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately explain why the Vocational Expert's testimony regarding unscheduled rest breaks, which would eliminate job opportunities, was not followed. The case was thus remanded for a rehearing, with instructions for the ALJ to properly consider all of Plaintiff's impairments and articulate the reasons for accepting or rejecting the vocational expert's determinations.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeDepressive DisorderAsthmaResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertRemandJudgment on the PleadingsSubstantial Evidence
References
25
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07632
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Morgan v. DR2 & Co. LLC

The claimant, Heidi M. Morgan, appealed multiple decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board following a 2007 work-related accident. The Board had initially denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, ruling that claimant's application failed to comply with service requirements upon the carrier. Subsequent applications for reconsideration and rehearing were also denied by the Board, with the latter based on the finding that the 'newly discovered evidence' was available in the Board's file for two years prior. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in denying review for defective service or in denying a rehearing, as the third-party administrator does not fulfill the service requirements for the carrier.

Workers' CompensationService of ProcessAdministrative ReviewReconsiderationRehearingAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureRegulatory ComplianceThird DepartmentNew Evidence
References
9
Case No. CV-24-0615
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Nadine Jackson

Claimant Nadine Jackson established a workers' compensation claim in 2011 for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, later amended and classified as a permanent partial disability. After her wage loss benefits ended in June 2022, she applied for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3), which was denied as untimely by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this denial and separately denied her application to reopen or rehear her claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening/rehearing request due to lack of specific evidence and upholding the untimeliness of the extreme hardship application, as it was filed outside the statutory one-year period.

Workers' CompensationExtreme HardshipRedeterminationTimelinessPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityReopening ClaimRehearingAppellate ReviewAdministrative Appeal
References
8
Case No. 534595
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Daniel Cush

Claimant Daniel Cush, an iron worker, filed a workers' compensation claim in January 2020 alleging a work-related injury on October 23, 2019, which caused a head injury and aggravated a prior neck injury. The employer, Tully Construction Co. Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing the aggravation was not causally-related to the October 2019 incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for an aggravation to the neck, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in its June 2021 panel decision. The carrier's subsequent applications for rehearing, reopening, and reconsideration were also denied. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the establishment of the claim and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the carrier's application for rehearing and/or reopening.

Aggravated InjuryNeck InjuryWork-Related InjuryCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceRehearing ApplicationNewly Discovered Evidence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 56 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