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
Mar 23, 2004

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

This case, Matter of Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., was heard by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The decision was rendered on March 23, 2004. The outcome of the case was that the appeal was withdrawn and discontinued. This indicates a resolution where further judicial review was halted by the appellant.

Appeal WithdrawnDiscontinuedWorkers' CompensationCourt of AppealsNew YorkCase Resolution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thomson v. Brute Spring & Equipment, Inc.

Claimant, an employee of Brute Spring & Equipment, Inc., sustained injuries while trimming trees at the private residence of Howard Besecker, the company's owner. Besecker's homeowner's insurance company disclaimed coverage. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the homeowner's insurer responsible, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, holding Brute Spring's workers' compensation carrier, One Beacon Insurance, liable. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the injury did not occur within the course of claimant's employment with Brute Spring. The court determined that the work performed exclusively benefited Besecker personally and was unrelated to Brute Spring's business operations, thus falling outside the scope of the carrier's policy.

Scope of EmploymentInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePersonal Benefit RuleEmployer LiabilityCarrier ResponsibilityTree Trimming AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionOff-premises Work
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01011 [169 AD3d 1477]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Matter of Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which had granted partial summary judgment to Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., et al., and 3679 River Road, Inc., et al. These parties were respondents and intervenors-respondents, respectively, while the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board and others were the appellants. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed the appeal. However, prior to a full merits decision, the appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was a result of a stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for all parties involved on January 15, 2019.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentAppeal DismissalStipulation of DiscontinuanceOnondaga CountyJudiciary LawFourth DepartmentProceduralCase Dismissal
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

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

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
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. ADJ18816357
Regular
May 15, 2025

JERRY WILLIAMS vs. PRIMORIS ELECTRIC, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, and determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were to occur. The decision emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board, referencing precedents like Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. and Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. for this stance.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04054
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Episcopal Church Home & Affiliates, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (plaintiff) assumed administration of the Long Term Care Risk Management Group, a self-insurance trust, and levied assessments against its former members (defendants) to cover an accumulated deficit. Defendants appealed an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment, raising issues regarding the summons's jurisdictional sufficiency, the timeliness of plaintiff's subsequent assessments, and the applicability of a collection fee. The Appellate Division determined the summons was jurisdictionally sound and that the statutory 120-day period for levying assessments was directory, not mandatory, thus upholding the validity of later assessments. However, the Court modified the order by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a collection fee, ruling that the fluctuating and unliquidated nature of the deficit did not meet the "liquidated sum" requirement of State Finance Law § 18. Consequently, the appeal was partially dismissed, the order and judgment modified to remove the collection fee, and affirmed in all other respects.

Group Self-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of AssessmentsJurisdictional DefectSummary JudgmentState Finance LawCollection FeesLiquidated DebtAppellate Review
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 36,846 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