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

Matter of Greey v. Yaphank Fire Department

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained work-related injuries in December 2005. Her workers' compensation claim was established but marked for no further action as she incurred no compensable lost time. In September 2013, the employer requested to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing that more than seven years had passed since the injury and three years since the last payment of compensation. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding the case improperly reopened and lacking proof of current liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that in the absence of proof of further medical or indemnity benefits payable, and with the claimant's affidavit attesting to no claims for reduced earnings, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer of liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability TransferVolunteer FirefighterMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsSeven Year RuleThree Year RuleAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08061 [155 AD3d 1268]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

Matter of Whitmeyer v. Oneida County

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Claimant, Susan Whitmeyer, sustained a work-related injury in 2006. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially transferred liability to the Special Fund, but the Board modified this, finding the employer's application incomplete and that the case was improperly reopened as there was no current liability to transfer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that while the employer's application to shift liability was timely, there was no proof that further medical or indemnity benefits were payable at the time the application was submitted, which is a prerequisite for reopening. Therefore, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer of liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferAppellate Division Third DepartmentWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationCase ReopeningMedical BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2010

In re Allen Children

The Department of Social Services (DSS) moved to reopen a trial to admit a certificate of conviction from Town of Sandy Creek Justice Court against the respondent father, Mr. Allen, for endangering the welfare of a child. The original neglect petition against Mr. Allen had been dismissed. The court considered factors for reopening a trial, including the sufficiency of the offer of proof, potential prejudice, and whether the evidence would add to the record. The court denied the motion, finding that while the conduct in both proceedings was similar and Mr. Allen had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the criminal action, the conviction for endangering the welfare of a child did not, by itself, prove actual or imminent physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child, which is a required element for a finding of neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B). Therefore, the certificate of conviction lacked collateral estoppel effect and would not provide new evidence or add anything to the record.

Reopening TrialCollateral EstoppelNeglect PetitionChild EndangermentCertificate of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceFamily Court JurisdictionParental Minimum Degree of CarePrejudiceOffer of Proof
References
21
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2010

Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

Claimant sustained a work-related crush injury to his right hand in 1987 and was granted a lump-sum nonschedule adjustment in 1993, closing his case. He subsequently sought to reopen his claim, submitting a psychologist's report alleging total disability due to chronic major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and chronic pain disorder stemming from the original accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his application, citing his prior waiver of the right to establish a psychiatric injury and insufficient proof of an unanticipated change in his established condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to demonstrate an unanticipated change in his medical condition that would warrant reopening the claim, especially given his prior waiver regarding psychiatric injury.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLump-Sum SettlementReopening ClaimPsychiatric InjuryWaiver of RightsChange in ConditionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Norcross v. Camden Central School

This case involves an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling that shifted liability to the Special Fund under WCL § 25-a, regarding a claimant's work-related injury from 2001. The Special Fund contended that the Board's decision deviated from its own precedent by shifting liability without requiring proof that further medical or indemnity benefits were payable, which is a necessary condition for reopening a claim for this purpose. The court determined that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its prior decisions, thereby rendering its determination arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ShiftAgency PrecedentRational ExplanationArbitrary and CapriciousRFA-2 formMedical BenefitsIndemnity BenefitsAppellate DivisionRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ewing v. YMCA

Claimant, a kitchen worker, sustained a left leg injury in September 1989, leading to a schedule loss of use award in November 2001. After the last compensation payment, the claimant requested to reopen her case in October 2004, which was denied as it lacked grounds for reopening. A subsequent request in June 2005, supported by a March 2005 medical report indicating a worsened condition, led the Workers' Compensation Board to reopen the case and transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund appealed, challenging the Board's determination that the 2004 letter did not constitute a proper reopening application. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported that the 2004 letter lacked sufficient grounds for reopening, thus upholding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund based on the June 2005 request.

Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardSpecial FundMedical ReportLiability TransferAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewWorsened Condition
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freemon v. VF Corp.

This is a worker's compensation case where the plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to deny permanent partial disability benefits, while awarding medical and temporary total disability. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in failing to consider a psychologist's testimony regarding a 'vocational disability' and in refusing to reopen the proof to hear new testimony from a physician. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, asserting that findings of permanent disability must be based on medical authorities, not psychologists, unless the disability is obvious to a layman. The Court also upheld the denial of the motion to reopen proof, ruling that the physician's revised opinion, sought after the initial denial of benefits, did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

Worker's CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsTemporary Total DisabilityVocational DisabilityPsychologist TestimonyPhysician TestimonyNewly Discovered EvidenceMotion for New TrialAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 58107472
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Klouse v. City of Albany

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained multiple compensable back injuries, leading to the reopening of two 1981 cases. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially held the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, but the Board reversed, finding that a November 1987 medical report by Dr. Dominic Belmonte constituted a timely request to reopen, thus discharging the Special Fund. Reliance Insurance Company, the carrier for the 1981 cases, sought full Board review, citing lack of notice and the report's insufficiency, but the Board denied it, affirming its prior decision that the report was adequate. The employer and Reliance appealed these Board decisions to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the finding that an application to reopen was made within seven years.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesApportionment of DisabilityMedical ReportSeven-Year RuleNotice RequirementsBack InjuryInsurance Carrier LiabilityBoard ReviewAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,574 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