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. 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. 528566
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Kelly (Kelly, Kevin (dec'd)

Claimant Christine Kelly filed a claim for death benefits after her husband's death, alleging it was causally-related to his established asbestos-related occupational disease. Liability for the original disability claim had been transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The employer argued the Special Fund should be liable for the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed that the death benefits claim was a new and distinct claim, accruing at the time of death in 2016. Therefore, its transfer to the Special Fund was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), as the Special Fund closed to new applications effective January 1, 2014, a ruling supported by Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that liability did not shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisCausally Related DeathLiability TransferStatutory Cut-off DateAppellate DivisionThird Judicial Department
References
2
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. 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. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Thomas v. Crucible Materials Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from February 25, 2009, which denied his application to reopen a workers' compensation claim. The claimant had sustained a right shoulder injury in 2002, leading to a 70% schedule loss of use classification in 2003. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially reclassified the claimant with a permanent total disability in 2007 due to worsening condition, the Board reversed this, finding insufficient proof of a significant change in medical condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board has discretion in reopening cases and that conflicting medical evidence supported the conclusion that no substantial change in the claimant's condition since 2003 had been established, despite arguments regarding deteriorating range of motion and complex regional pain syndrome.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Total DisabilityReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceChange in ConditionBoard DiscretionRotator Cuff InjuryComplex Regional Pain SyndromeAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 531927
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Donnay Kingston

Claimant Donnay Kingston appeals two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning her claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, later amended to include DeQuervain's tenosynovitis. In 2014, a WCLJ awarded her a schedule loss of use (SLU) of both wrists, which the Board affirmed in 2016. In 2019, claimant's treating physician requested to reopen the claim due to an alleged material change in her medical condition. Both the WCLJ and the Board denied the reopening, concluding that while symptoms had worsened, this was anticipated and did not constitute a *material* change warranting reopening. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening or the application for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Carpal Tunnel SyndromeDeQuervain's TenosynovitisMedical Condition ChangeClaim ReopeningAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianMedical Evidence
References
7
Case No. CV-23-2165
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Coyle \[Michael Coyle (dec'd)\]

In 2016, Michael Coyle established a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries and was later classified with a permanent partial disability. Following his death in January 2021, his minor son, Joseph Coyle, sought and was granted his father's unpaid wage-loss benefits, based on the precedent set by *Matter of Green v Dutchess County BOCES*. However, in October 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed *Green*, ruling against the posthumous transfer of unaccrued nonschedule awards. Consequently, the employer and its carrier requested to reopen the claim and suspend payments to Joseph Coyle. While a WCLJ initially reopened the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, denying the reopening and continuing benefit payments. The carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to seek administrative review of the initial WCLJ decision and finding no abuse of the Board's discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealPosthumous Wage-loss BenefitsClaim ReopeningAdministrative DiscretionFinality of WCLJ DecisionCourt of Appeals PrecedentGreen v Dutchess County BOCESPermanent Partial DisabilityUnaccrued BenefitsAbuse of Discretion Standard
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2001

Claim of Jones v. HSBC

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant, an accounts clerk for Marine Midland Bank, developed carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive keyboarding in 1991, leading to an occupational disease claim. After surgery in 1994, the case was closed in 1995 with an award for a 15% schedule loss of use of her right hand. Subsequently, the claimant experienced increased pain and new bilateral diagnoses in 1998, prompting a new claim and modification of the original claim to include additional body parts. The central dispute was whether the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was responsible for further medical payments. The Board affirmed that § 25-a applied, holding the Fund liable for treatment after September 11, 1998. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its determination that the case was truly closed in 1995 and subsequently reopened was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCase Reopening CriteriaOccupational Disease ClaimCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Motion InjurySchedule Loss of Use AwardMedical Payments ResponsibilityAppellate Division AffirmanceSubstantial Evidence Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 17,815 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