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. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 05, 2016

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order that he claimed was issued January 11, 2016, arguing a Compromise and Release did not settle his serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting the applicant filed his petition significantly late. Even if considered timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits, as a prior decision had already approved a Compromise and Release excluding the 132a claim. The Board clarified that while 132a claims are not subject to ADR, serious and willful misconduct claims are.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseArbitratorAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 132aTimelinessOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionDivision 4
References
0
Case No. ADJ1245747 (BAK 0140714)
Regular
Jul 14, 2009

BALDEMAR SANCHEZ vs. KINLEY CONSTRUCTION, AIG COSTA MESA

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct, thus denying additional benefits under Labor Code § 4553. The applicant had previously settled his industrial injury claim for $60,000, but the settlement explicitly excluded the serious and willful misconduct claim. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the employer's conduct, while negligent, did not rise to the level of serious and willful misconduct. The Board also noted the applicant's petition violated procedural rules regarding spacing, cautioning counsel for future compliance.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact & AwardCompromise & ReleaseIndustrial InjuryPelvis InjuryHip InjuryAbdomen InjuryBilateral Knees Injury
References
0
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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. ADJ7688671; ADJ8112129
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

ZACHARY BAZILIUS vs. CITY OF TORRANCE

Applicant Zachary Bazilius and defendant City of Torrance each sought reconsideration of Findings and Order concerning a serious and willful claim under Labor Code section 4553. The WCJ had previously found a violation but deemed it settled by a civil agreement. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior Findings and Order, determining that the WCAB holds exclusive jurisdiction over Section 4553 claims and that civil settlements cannot settle such claims without WCAB approval. The Board also noted that the civil release explicitly excluded workers' compensation claims. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the defendant's conduct constituted a serious and willful violation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 4553Serious and Willful MisconductCivil SettlementJurisdictionReconsiderationFindings and OrderExclusive JurisdictionIncreased CompensationCivil Action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gavigan v. State

Claimant, an employee of Horizon Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., sustained serious personal injuries in April 1989 while working on a State-owned property. He sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the State, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 due to an improperly constructed and maintained rampway. The Court of Claims initially denied two motions but subsequently granted a third, finding sufficient factors under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to support its decision, including the merit of the claim and timely notice to a State employee. The State appealed this decision, arguing an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Court of Claims' order, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its broad discretion.

Late Notice of ClaimState LiabilityOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryCourt of Claims ActLabor Law ViolationsRampway SafetyEmployee InjuryAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ2436436
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

CLEMENTE CASTRO vs. EDEN ROSE FARMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Clemente Castro's Petition for Reconsideration regarding his claim for serious and willful misconduct. The Board adopted the WCJ's report which found the claim barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5407. The WCJ determined that while the original application listed Labor Code section 4553, it did not meet the pleading requirements for a serious and willful misconduct claim. Furthermore, applicant failed to properly serve the employer with the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and willful misconductStatute of limitationsLabor Code section 4553Labor Code section 5407Petition for ReconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of ClaimWCJ reportPetition for Increased BenefitsElectro cution
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 18,497 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