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. ADJ4634338 (MON 0262377)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

NINA GOODRICH vs. UNILAB/QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA, CNA CLAIMSPLUS, VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, ZURICH INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns a dispute over contribution claims following a cumulative injury to the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an arbitration finding, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that Sedgwick, which paid over $180,000 in benefits, was not required to file a petition for contribution under section 5500.5 because it was not a signatory to the Compromise and Release (C&R). Furthermore, the Board held that even if Sedgwick had been required to file, the co-defendant CNA would be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations due to stipulations in the C&R reserving contribution rights. The Board concluded Sedgwick's claim for reimbursement was not time-barred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNina GoodrichUnilabQuest DiagnosticsSedgwick Claims Management ServicesAmerican Casualty Co.CNA ClaimsplusValley Health SystemsTristar Risk ManagementZurich Insurance Co.
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. 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. ADJ10988642; ADJ11111236
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

Cecilia Dolores Garcia vs. Pomona Unified School District, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

Both applicant Cecilia Dolores Garcia and defendants Pomona Unified School District and Sedgwick Claims Management Services petitioned for reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's Findings and Order (Amended) from January 30, 2025. The WCJ had found no work-related psyche injury, an industrial left knee injury, and ordered further development for other claimed body parts. The applicant contested the psyche injury finding, while the defendants challenged the left knee finding and the need for further medical development. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions for reconsideration and deferred a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.

Cumulative traumaPsyche injuryLeft knee injuryIndustrial natureFurther developmentMed-legal evaluationSpecific injuryNon-industrialDiligencePetition for reconsideration
References
24
Case No. ADJ2906378
Regular
May 24, 2011

NORMA ALONSO vs. PRECISION CAST PARTS CORPORATION AKA AVIBANK MANUFACTURING, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves Norma Alonso's workers' compensation claim against Precision Cast Parts Corporation and Sedgwick Claims Management Services. Alonso filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal, seeking to overturn a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report. Ultimately, the Board denied both reconsideration and removal, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report.

ReconsiderationRemovalPetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDeniedPrecision Cast Parts CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ2906378LAO 0881297
References
0
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
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. ADJ2842535
Regular
May 27, 2011

JANE HUTZELL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by applicant Jane Hutzell against the University of California at Berkeley. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report. The judge found that vocational experts' opinions did not adequately address the impact of medical apportionment or the specifics of part-time work availability on the overall industrial disability rating. Therefore, the judge's rating, based on established schedules, was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational ExpertsLumbar Spine ConditionCumulative TraumaNon-Industrial FactorsObesityApportionmentBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18,039 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