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

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

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
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

Amabile v. City of Buffalo

Estelle Amabile fell and was injured due to a defective sidewalk in the City of Buffalo, caused by a protruding stop-sign post and cracked concrete. She and her husband sued the City, which moved for summary judgment citing a lack of prior written notice as required by the City Charter. Plaintiffs argued for a "constructive notice" exception, but the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's denial, granting summary judgment to the City. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that constructive notice cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of prior written notice for sidewalk defects, thus upholding legislative intent to protect municipalities from liability without actual written notice.

Municipal liabilitySidewalk defectPrior written noticeConstructive noticeSummary judgmentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewNegligencePersonal injuryBuffalo City Charter
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dolan v. Regan

The case involves an appeal from a judgment denying a petitioner's application to annul the Comptroller's determination regarding accidental disability retirement. Previously, the case was remitted to determine if notice to the Mount Vernon Police Department complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 18. After a rehearing, the Comptroller again denied the application, asserting that notice to an employer without workers' compensation coverage does not satisfy the notice requirements of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 (c). The Special Term denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 application, and the appellate court affirmed this decision, upholding that notice to an employer without workers' compensation benefits does not fulfill the statutory notice requirement for the Comptroller.

Accidental Disability RetirementNotice RequirementWorkers' Compensation CoverageRetirement BenefitsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawEmployer ResponsibilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04212 [240 AD3d 1080]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2025

Matter of Stein v. DiNapoli

Kristin Stein applied for accidental disability retirement benefits due to psychological injuries from a workplace assault, but her application was denied for failing to provide timely notice as required by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 (c). The Hearing Officer and respondent upheld the denial, determining that Stein did not provide written notice within 90 days of the January 2019 incident. The court rejected arguments that actual employer knowledge or a later diagnosis constituted exceptions to the statutory notice rule. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the respondent's decision, dismissing Stein's petition and affirming the strict application of the notice requirements.

Accidental Disability RetirementStatutory Notice RequirementPsychological InjuriesWorkplace AssaultRetirement and Security LawCPLR Article 78Timely NoticeGood Cause ExceptionWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1997

Mark v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, an order which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial. The petitioners failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for their almost six-month delay beyond the 90-day statutorily-prescribed period. Additionally, the petitioners did not provide the respondents with actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within the required timeframe. The court noted that the conditions at the accident scene changed to the prejudice of the respondents, preventing their own investigation, and the ladder involved was allegedly discarded immediately after the incident. Filing a Workers’ Compensation claim was also deemed insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e.

late notice of claimjudicial discretionactual noticeprejudice to respondentchanged conditionsWorkers’ Compensation claimappellate reviewstatutory periodKings Countymunicipal liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Bonilla v. Country Rotisserie

In November 2010, a claimant was injured and sought workers' compensation benefits. The workers' compensation carrier denied the claim, asserting the employer's policy had been canceled in August 2010 due to unpaid premiums. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the cancellation invalid due to improper notice, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the policy properly canceled and the employer uninsured. The employer appealed this Board decision, contending the notice requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) were not met. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the carrier had complied with the statutory requirements by sending the cancellation notice via certified mail to the address designated by the employer, which was the CEO's home address.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Cancellation NoticeEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewStatutory ComplianceCertified Mail ServiceDesignated AddressPolicy EndorsementWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalJudicial Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Claim of Lash v. General Motors Corp.

Claimant, an electrician, developed occupational hearing loss after working for General Motors Corporation and then American Axle. A claim was filed, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Board decision to apportion the award between the two employers. General Motors appealed, arguing American Axle failed to provide statutory notice for apportionment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that General Motors' actual knowledge of the claimant's preexisting hearing loss was equivalent to the required statutory notice under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-ee, thereby permitting the apportionment of the claim.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationApportionmentActual KnowledgeStatutory NoticeLast Employer LiabilityNew York LawEmployer ResponsibilityPreexisting ConditionHearing Test
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,090 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