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

Clark v. New York City Department of Human Resources Administration

Claimant received workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries and settled a third-party action for $725,000. The employer and carrier consented, expecting satisfaction of their lien and a future credit. Claimant sought reimbursement for legal expenses, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) declined an award without a closing statement. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision and assessed a $500 penalty against claimant’s counsel for pursuing proceedings without reasonable grounds. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported the counsel fee assessment because the application for Board review was unnecessary given the requirement for a signed closing statement.

Workers' Compensation LawMonetary PenaltyCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementCarrier's CreditLien SatisfactionLegal Expenses ReimbursementClosing Statement RequirementBoard ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether Workers’ Compensation Law section 114-a (1) authorizes the Workers’ Compensation Board to disqualify a claimant from receiving wage replacement benefits even when the forfeited compensation is not "directly attributable" to a false statement. The court held that while the mandatory penalty requires a direct link, the Board possesses discretionary power to impose disqualification, which can include forfeiture of all or a portion of benefits, regardless of whether the false statement enabled the claimant to receive compensation. The court defined "material fact" broadly as significant or essential to the issue at hand. In the cases of James Losurdo and Florencia Machado, where the Board had imposed disqualifications for misrepresentations, the court reversed and remitted the matters. It directed the Board to clarify whether mandatory or discretionary penalties were applied and to provide an explanation for the proportionality of any disqualification imposed under its discretionary power.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudWage Replacement BenefitsMaterial FactDisqualificationDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyApportionmentPreexisting InjurySurveillance
References
11
Case No. ADJ514225 (SJO 0135271)
Regular
Sep 02, 2009

PIERRE PALENGAT vs. THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award granting further medical treatment, including supervised water therapy and a gym membership, to the applicant. The Board found that the defendant's counsel made false and misleading statements under penalty of perjury in the petition regarding the applicant's failure to object to a prior utilization review denial. Consequently, the Board removed the case for the purpose of imposing a $750 sanction on the defendant's counsel for these bad-faith tactics.

Agreed medical evaluatorUtilization reviewLabor Code section 4062Petition for reconsiderationVerified answerExpedited hearingRemovalAppeals Board Rule 10561Section 5813Bad-faith actions
References
0
Case No. ADJ7128393
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

TOMASA MARTINEZ vs. GUS JR.; FARMER'S INSURANCE COMPANY, Mid-Century Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and dismissed a petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to change venue from Los Angeles to Riverside, claiming the initial filing was untimely. However, their petition lacked the required verification and statement under penalty of perjury regarding notice receipt, thus failing to establish timeliness under WCAB Rule 10410. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, noting that the defendant could still seek venue change later based on good cause for witness convenience.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ7128393PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALCHANGE OF VENUERIVERSIDE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYWCJLABOR CODE SECTION 5501.5WCAB RULE 10410
References
3
Case No. ADJ10678864
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ALEX CASTILLO MASIS vs. EAST BAY FOODS INC, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Disqualification filed against a Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing an unqualified opinion or bias. Upon review of the record and the WCJ's report, the Board found the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations, declared under penalty of perjury, to establish disqualification. Although the WCJ suggested sanctions for false statements by applicant's attorney, the Board declined to impose them but admonished the attorney for not being candid and truthful. Therefore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960Judicial BiasPrejudgmentWCJ ReportSanctionsRule 10421False Declarations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,908 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