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

Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garguiolo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The Court of Claims initially granted the claimants' application for permission to file a late notice of claim without providing reasons. This decision was subsequently reversed by the appellate court. The reversal was predicated on the statutory factors outlined in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), which include a six-month unexplained delay in filing and a lack of evidence that the State or Thruway Authority had prior notice of the claim's essential facts or an opportunity to investigate. The appellate court further noted that the State would suffer prejudice due to the changing nature of the construction site where the injury occurred. Additionally, the claimant's allegations regarding a violation of the New York State Labor Law were deemed bare, and a partial alternate remedy was available through workers’ compensation.

Late Notice of ClaimCourt of Claims Act Section 10(6)Appellate ReversalMotion DeniedPrejudiceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation RemedyNew York State Labor LawFailure to State ReasonsTimeliness of Claim
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1990

Skelton v. City of New York

The petitioner, a dietary aide employed by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) at North Central Bronx Hospital (NCB), sought leave to file a late notice of claim after an alleged slip and fall injury in the locker room. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the petitioner's motion. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial, ruling that the City of New York, a named defendant, had no control over HHC, which is a separate and distinct statutory entity. Therefore, the City could not be deemed to have actual notice of the accident through workers' compensation claim forms supplied to HHC.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawNew York City Health and Hospitals CorporationGovernmental ImmunitySeparate Legal EntityWorkers' Compensation ClaimSlip and FallBronx County Supreme CourtAppellate DivisionActual Notice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruzzese v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which had granted a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The appellate court reversed this order, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their delay, rejecting their assertions of misunderstanding workers' compensation versus personal injury claims and a mistaken belief that their attorney would automatically handle the latter. Additionally, the petitioners did not establish that the City of New York acquired actual knowledge of the claim's essential facts within the statutory 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the City was not prejudiced by the delay in receiving notice of the specific facts of the claim.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation DistinctionActual Knowledge RequirementPrejudice ArgumentAppellate ProcedureDiscretionary RulingPersonal Injury ActionCity of New YorkRichmond County
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F. G. Compagni Construction Co. v. Ross

Petitioners appealed judgments that had annulled certain prevailing wage and supplement redeterminations and notices to withhold payment issued under Labor Law sections 220 and 220-b. They contended that the respondent failed to ascertain prevailing wages and supplements by investigating workers in the defined 'locality,' instead conducting county-wide surveys and using union wage rates without proving majority union membership. The court affirmed the vacatur of redeterminations, finding the respondent's methods deviated from statutory mandates and that 1978 amendments to Labor Law section 220 were not retroactive. However, the court modified the judgments by reversing the annulment of notices to withhold payment, ruling that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial review on that matter.

Prevailing WageWage RedeterminationsLabor Law ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewRetroactivity of LawPublic Works ContractsUnion Wage ScalesLocality DefinitionExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Deceased) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cortese v. Rochester Products Division, G.M.C.

This case concerns an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant who developed leg and back pain, culminating in a herniated disc, after a new work assignment involving lifting heavy carburetors. The self-insured employer appealed the Board's findings that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that her failure to give timely statutory notice was excused. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, asserting that a compensable accident can arise from repetitive trauma leading to a sudden collapse, and the specific onset of severe pain satisfies the suddenness test. Furthermore, the Board properly excused the delayed notice as it neither aggravated the injury nor hindered the defense. Substantial medical evidence supported the causal relationship between the work activities and the injury.

Repetitive TraumaHerniated DiscLaminectomyDelayed Notice ExcusedCausal ConnectionSuddenness TestWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial EvidenceWork-related InjuryEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,161 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