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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 1990

Claim of Campbell v. McMillan Book Co.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had previously ruled that the discharge of the claimant’s decedent was not in retaliation for filing a compensation claim. The appellate court found that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving that the decedent’s discharge was retaliatory. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s conclusion that the decedent was discharged for a valid business purpose, specifically for failing to timely file a required form despite warnings and extensions, was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the determination that the employment termination was not retaliatory for filing disability benefits was upheld.

Retaliatory DischargeDisability ClaimEmployment TerminationTimely Filing RequirementBusiness JustificationEvidentiary SupportAppellate ReviewClaim DenialWorkplace Policies
References
2
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. 534702
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Hung Nguyen

Claimant Hung Nguyen, a former CVS RX Services, Inc. employee, alleged discrimination and retaliation after taking paid family leave (PFL), including reduced hours and a denied pay raise. He filed a PFL discrimination/retaliation complaint in December 2019. Despite multiple notices sent to its Rhode Island and New York addresses, the employer failed to appear at three scheduled hearings. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the employer violated PFL law and Workers' Compensation Law § 120, ordering reinstatement, back wages, and restoration of benefits. The employer's subsequent application to rehear or reopen the claim, asserting lack of notice and new evidence, was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the employer was properly notified and failed to provide new material evidence or sufficient justification for its non-appearance.

PFL DiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNoticeAbuse of DiscretionRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimEmployer LiabilityWage Loss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Riese Organization, Inc.

Plaintiffs, former maintenance workers, were terminated and signed severance agreements releasing all employment-related claims, including those under human rights laws, in exchange for severance pay. Approximately three years later, they filed a lawsuit against their former employer, A.R.O. Construction Corp., alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the releases barred the claims. While plaintiffs contended the releases were procured by duress and fraud, the appellate court determined that plaintiffs had ratified the agreements by accepting the severance payments and failing to promptly repudiate the releases. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSeverance agreementGeneral releaseContract ratificationDuressFraudMotion to dismissAppellate review
References
14
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 17,677 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