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. 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. 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. 531391
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Hogan

Claimant Thomas Hogan, a freelance per diem technician, injured his finger in December 2015 while working for CBS Television Stations. He reported the injury and filed a workers' compensation claim. His employment ended on December 23, 2015, and Hogan subsequently filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing the claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found in Hogan's favor, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, concluding that Hogan failed to prove a violation of § 120. Hogan appealed the Board's decisions. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hogan's termination was not causally linked to his workers' compensation claim, as he had been informed of his assignment's end date prior to his injury.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscrimination ComplaintCausal NexusSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardFreelance TechnicianOccupational Disease
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1987

Claim of Kuk v. General Electric Co.

The claimant, a data processing control clerk, was discharged by General Electric Company and subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim under § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for an earlier compensation claim. A divided panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that no discrimination occurred, and a request for full Board review was denied. The court dismissed the claimant's appeal as untimely, stating it was not filed within 30 days of the December 12, 1986 decision and that a request for full Board review does not toll the statutory appeal period. The court also rejected the retroactive application of a 1983 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 regarding mandatory full Board review for discrimination claims. Furthermore, the court indicated that even on substantive issues, the Board's decision, finding termination due to absenteeism and poor work relations rather than discrimination, was supported by substantial evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeTimeliness of AppealWorkers' Compensation LawFull Board ReviewStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationSubstantial EvidenceDiscrimination ClaimAppellate ProcedureEmployer-Employee Relations
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bal v. Sidewalk of New York Productions, Inc.

Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employer contended the termination was due to unsatisfactory performance prior to the reported injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, questioning the claimant's testimony and a tape recording. A Board panel affirmed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's discretionary denial, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant had ample opportunity to litigate the credibility issue and further review was unwarranted.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimCredibility IssueDiscretionary ReviewFull Board ReviewPro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUnsatisfactory Job Performance
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Donohue v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc.

The claimant sustained a disabling wrist fracture in April 1982 and was cleared by her physician and the employer's carrier's physician to return to work by August 1, 1982. However, she informed her employer she would not return, citing continued difficulties, and subsequently missed a scheduled examination by the company physician, claiming a broken foot. Her employment was terminated on August 18, 1982. The claimant alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found her testimony not credible and concluded that the employer had a valid, non-retaliatory reason for termination due to her uncooperative behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, determining it was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer was justified in the discharge.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer JustificationEmployee UncooperativenessMedical Examination FindingsDisability ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Webb v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Claimant, a provisional employee, suffered work-related injuries in July 1996, establishing a workers' compensation claim. His employer terminated him on March 3, 1997, allegedly due to a poor employment record after his supervisor deemed his medical documentation unacceptable and marked him absent without leave. Claimant filed a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for his compensation claim. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causal nexus between the rejected documents and discharge, the Workers’ Compensation Board, upon full review and reconsideration, denied the claim, concluding that claimant failed to prove retaliatory intent. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the lack of retaliatory motive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ComplaintBurden of ProofCausal NexusMedical DocumentationProvisional EmployeeUnsatisfactory Performance ReviewAbsent Without LeaveAppellate Division
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 17,632 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