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
Nov 14, 2000

Claim of Martin v. Levest Electric Corp.

The claimant, having suffered work-related injuries, pursued both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party personal injury action, which was subsequently settled. A contention arose concerning the workers' compensation carrier's entitlement to offset future benefits against the net settlement proceeds, as outlined in Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the carrier had correctly preserved its right to this offset. On appeal, the claimant argued that the carrier had consented to the settlement, thereby waiving its offset right, and that a court possessed the authority to waive such a right. The appellate court upheld the Board's finding, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of carrier consent to the settlement, and reaffirmed that a court cannot override a carrier's explicit reservation of its offset rights.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsCarrier ConsentFuture BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionBoard RulingReservation of Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1997

Claim of Whitcomb v. Xerox Corp.

In July 1993, a claimant sustained a compensable neck and back injury during employment and subsequently received workers’ compensation benefits. She initiated and settled a third-party action for $50,000, with the employer’s carrier consenting while explicitly reserving its right to seek reimbursement for payments exceeding the settlement amount. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge classified her as permanently partially disabled and credited the net third-party recovery against her continuing workers’ compensation award. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision, ruling that the carrier had adequately preserved its offset rights, a finding affirmed on appeal based on substantial evidence from the carrier’s written consent.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityCarrier ConsentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFuture Awards
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1980

Claim of Morris v. Cleanco Industrial Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning whether a claimant waived his Federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113. The claimant sustained a knee injury while working on a ship and initially sought New York State workers' compensation benefits, which he received. Subsequently, he filed a Federal claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer and its carrier contended that by pursuing State benefits, the claimant waived his Federal remedies. The State board ruled that accepting State benefits did not constitute a waiver of the right to seek Federal benefits. This appellate court affirmed the board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Waiver of Federal RightsWorkers’ Compensation LawLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActAdmiralty JurisdictionState Compensation BenefitsFederal Compensation BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryDocked Ship
References
5
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Claim of Tully v. Live Right Realty Corp.

The claimant, a painter and plasterer, suffered a heart attack while working. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Jules Reich, rather than Live Right Realty Corporation. This decision was upheld by a Workers’ Compensation Board panel and subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion, citing factors such as Reich's control over the claimant's work, provision of materials, payment method, and right to discharge.

Employer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl of WorkMethod of PaymentRight to DischargeAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeHeart AttackLabor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2005

Bremner v. New Venture Gear

Claimant underwent a right knee replacement in 1991 due to a non-work-related condition. In October 2002, he sustained work-related injuries to his right shoulder and right knee, leading to increased knee pain from loosening knee replacement components, ultimately requiring surgery. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found apportionment inapplicable for temporary disability benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that apportionment does not apply where a pre-existing non-compensable condition did not hinder the claimant's ability to perform job duties at the time of the work-related accident. The court noted that claimant was asymptomatic and fully capable of performing his duties when the accident occurred.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPre-existing ConditionKnee InjuryWork-related AccidentTemporary Disability BenefitsAppellate ReviewCausationMedical ConditionSurgery
References
4
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Beth V. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Claimant, a youth division aide, suffered severe injuries including physical assault, rape, and kidnapping during work, leading to established workers' compensation benefits and a classification of permanent partial disability. She subsequently reached a $650,000 settlement in a federal civil rights action against her employer and co-employees for the same injuries. The workers' compensation carrier waived its lien for past benefits but asserted a right to a credit for future payments against the settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision, ruling in favor of the carrier's credit, finding the settlement covered the same injuries for which workers' compensation benefits were awarded. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the carrier's entitlement to a credit against the third-party settlement recovery.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementCredit Against RecoveryLienFuture BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityPTSDRapeCivil Rights ClaimFederal Lawsuit
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06850 [212 AD3d 126]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Matter of Levi v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, was removed from the list of authorized medical providers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he received unlawful payments from a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, Elite Medical Supply of New York, LLC. This was deemed a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-d (2) (g), 13-l (10) (g) and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (3). Petitioner challenged this removal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a statutory right to a hearing before the Chiropractic Practice Committee (CPC) prior to removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The appellate court held that while Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l (10) outlines a CPC hearing process, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board also possesses independent authority under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-l (12) and 13-d (1) to investigate and remove a provider without a hearing when the underlying facts, such as petitioner's admitted receipt of unlawful payments, are undisputed and do not present questions of fact.

ChiropractorMedical ProviderAuthorization RemovalUnlawful PaymentsDurable Medical EquipmentWorkers' Compensation BoardProfessional MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 23,816 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