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

Ransom v. Patton

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Board, to reissue a check for the balance of a supervised account. Although the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the original May 1988 check, investigations revealed that the petitioner's father had received, endorsed, and deposited the funds at the petitioner's request, subsequently disbursing the proceeds to him. The Supreme Court's denial of the respondent's motion to dismiss was deemed erroneous. The appellate court unanimously reversed the order and dismissed the petition, concluding that the Workers' Compensation Board had fulfilled its duty by issuing the initial check and lacked authority to reissue public funds without a clear legal right demonstrated by the petitioner.

MandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardSupervised AccountCheck ReissuancePublic FundsClear Legal RightDismissal of PetitionAppellate ReviewErie County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Insurance

Vam Check Cashing Corporation (VAM) sued Federal Insurance Company after experiencing a $120,000 loss due to an elaborate fraud scheme. Imposters tricked a cashier at VAM's Pine Check Cashing location into handing over the money. Federal denied VAM's claim, asserting the incident did not meet the policy's definition of 'Robbery,' specifically concerning the terms 'overt felonious act' and 'cognizance.' The court examined the insurance policy's ambiguous language, particularly the meanings of 'overt' and 'cognizance.' It ruled that the cashier did not need to recognize the act as criminal for coverage, only that the physical act of transferring money occurred in her presence and control. The court found Federal's interpretation would defeat the policy's purpose of protecting check cashing businesses from fraud. Consequently, VAM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Federal's motion was denied.

Insurance Policy InterpretationRobbery DefinitionSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityFraud SchemeCheck Cashing BusinessOn Premises ClauseOvert Felonious ActCognizance RequirementNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1961

People v. Meadows

This is an appeal by a defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered March 21, 1961, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, forgery in the third degree, misappropriation of funds by a public officer, and obtaining proceeds of a fraudulent audit. The defendant, a case worker for the Welfare Department of the City of Poughkeepsie, was indicted on 68 counts for fraudulently causing checks to be issued to welfare recipients and then converting the proceeds. Recipients testified they either cashed checks and gave proceeds to the defendant or endorsed checks in blank and gave them to her. The defendant claimed the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that corroborating testimony was improperly admitted, and that there was an erroneous jury charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the record sustained the verdict, the challenged testimony was properly received, and any assumed error in the charge did not prejudice the defendant.

Grand LarcenyForgeryMisappropriation of FundsPublic Officer MisconductFraudulent AuditWelfare FraudCriminal AppealJury TrialSufficiency of EvidenceEvidentiary Ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hills v. New York City Board of Education

The claimant suffered a work-related wrist injury and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, including a schedule loss of use payment. The self-insured employer mailed a check for $4,580.20, but the claimant asserted non-receipt and denied endorsing the cancelled check. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ordered the employer to re-issue payment and investigate. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that timely mailing constituted payment and absolved the employer of further obligation. The Appellate Division found the Board's reversal arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to provide a rationale for deviating from its own conflicting precedents regarding employer responsibility in cases of unreceived or improperly endorsed payments. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the determination that the employer was not required to issue another check, and remitted the matter for additional proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePayment DisputeCheck Non-receiptEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawArbitrary and CapriciousRemittal
References
11
Case No. ADJ7504787
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

DORIEL RAMOS vs. HIBACHI SUSHI \& GRILL, FIRST COMP LTD.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing a lien claim. The lien claimant had paid the lien activation fee by check prior to the conference, but the check had not yet cleared, and the WCJ dismissed the lien. The Appeals Board found that payment was tendered before the conference and proof was presented, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeWCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien conferenceLabor Code section 4903.06Proof of paymentDismissal with prejudiceEAMSDue process
References
0
Case No. OXN 0134891; OXN 0134895 OXN 0134908; OXN 0147440 OXN 0147441; OXN 0147444
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

CRYSTAL BROWN vs. OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding no delay in payment of a compromise and release (C&R). The applicant argued that payment was delayed because she received the settlement check after the 30-day deadline, but the Board found that payment was timely tendered when the check was issued and mailed on the 30th day. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for penalties, interest, or attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOxnard School DistrictSouthern California Risk Management AssociatesOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseChild Nutrition WorkerUpper Extremities InjuryKnee InjuryLow Back InjuryDelay in PaymentMailbox Rule
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Karl Ehmer, Inc.

The claimant, a butcher, sustained a knee injury in the employer's parking lot after his shift while checking a flat tire. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, deeming it a personal act outside the scope of employment. On appeal, the court reversed, determining that the employer's parking lot was within the precincts of employment and that activities related to an orderly departure, such as checking a tire, could be compensable. The court concluded that the presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 was not sufficiently rebutted by the employer.

Workers' CompensationParking Lot InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPersonal PursuitDeparture from WorkPresumption of CompensabilityFlat TireAppellate ReviewEmployer Benefit
References
8
Case No. ADJ4630593 (SBR 0315128)
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

GEORGE MONTAGUE vs. GAF LEATHERBACK, ZURICH PRIMARY

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied. The defendant sought to overturn an order requiring production of specific checks and TD/PD payment information. The Board affirmed the order, finding production of cancelled checks necessary to verify payments and clarify discrepancies. Further, the Board determined that current documentation was insufficient to assess interest payments, and the applicant must have the opportunity to review and comment on the provided data. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDirecting Development of RecordTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityInterest CalculationsThird-party administratorsGallagher BassettCrawford and CompanySupplemental Findings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ4461663 (VNO 0501542)
Regular
Oct 01, 2014

JONATHAN TRASK, vs. BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC., permissibly selfinsured, administered by MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied lien claimant Dr. Silver's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Bloomingdale's timely paid the negotiated lien settlement by issuing a check within 30 days, and when it was not received, a stop payment was placed and a replacement check issued promptly. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to admit bank records supporting timely payment, despite procedural objections regarding disclosure. Therefore, penalties, sanctions, and costs sought by the lien claimant were denied.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderTimely PaymentPenaltiesSanctionsFeesCostsComputer screen shotsSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Watson v. American Can Co.

The claimant, a matron, was injured while returning from cashing her paycheck at a bank, a task undertaken during her lunch break. The employer had changed its payment method from cash to check after a robbery and made special arrangements with a nearby bank to facilitate check cashing for its employees, including increasing tellers and extending hours. Despite the general rule that injuries off-premises during lunch are not compensable, the court found that the journey was partly for the employer's benefit due to its payment policy. Therefore, the activity was deemed sufficiently related to employment. The decision and award of workmen's compensation were affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationEmployer LiabilityInjury during lunch breakCourse of employmentBenefit of employerCheck cashing policyOff-premises injuryAppealsSelf-insured employerAccident
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 134 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