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. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jennel Collins

Claimant Jennel Collins appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision that found the employer, New York City Transit Authority, timely filed a notice of controversy. Collins sustained injuries at work and filed a claim for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the employer failed to timely controvert, waiving defenses and establishing the claim. However, the WCB modified this, ruling that the 25-day period for controverting under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) was not triggered because the case was not indexed, making the employer's subsequent controversion timely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings because the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the binding nature of the employer's initial injury reports indicating acceptance of liability, and if subsequent actions violated Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) or 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c).

Workers' CompensationNotice of ControversyTimelinessWaiver of DefensesBoard IndexingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. 534485
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of William Grimaldi

Claimant William Grimaldi sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and 2008. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially erred in calculating the payment rate for the 2007 claim, leading to a prior appeal where this Court remitted the matter for re-computation based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of the 2007 injury for awards made after December 23, 2013. In a May 2021 decision, the Board correctly applied the rate but limited its application to a specific period and reduced counsel fees. While claimant's subsequent appeal of this May 2021 decision was pending, the Board, on its own motion, reviewed and amended its decision in June 2022. The amended decision directed that all continuing awards for the 2007 claim be paid at the rate based on the 2007 earnings and granted the full requested counsel fees. As the Board's subsequent decision rendered the appeal moot, this Court dismissed the appeal and assessed costs against the Workers' Compensation Board for the expenses incurred by the claimant in perfecting an unnecessary appeal.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewMootnessWage Earning CapacityPayment RateAverage Weekly WageCounsel FeesBoard ReconsiderationCosts on AppealPermanent Partial Disability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2005

Claim of Haas v. Gross Electric

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from July 13, 2005, which denied his claim for benefits, finding no causally related injury. The claim stemmed from a December 17, 2002, work-related motor vehicle accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claim established based on medical expert opinions linking a back injury to the accident. However, this determination was rescinded after the carrier submitted newly discovered evidence—medical records from claimant’s primary care physician, Thomas Coppens—revealing prior back injuries and that the current problems began while wrapping presents on December 24, 2002. Subsequent medical opinions became ambivalent or changed, leading to the disallowance of the claim by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision later affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Motor Vehicle AccidentBack InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert OpinionPrior Medical HistoryNewly Discovered EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewClaim DisallowanceAppellate AffirmationBoard Decision
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rowe v. Oswego Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a lower back injury in December 1998 while lifting a patient and filed a workers' compensation claim in June 1999. The employer controverted the claim, citing lack of timely notice. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claim due to non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the employer was prejudiced by the delay. On appeal, the court rejected the claimant’s waiver argument, affirming the Board’s finding that the employer lacked timely notice and suffered prejudice, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ClaimNotice RequirementsEmployer PrejudiceBack InjuryRegistered NurseIncident ReportAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2002

Claim of Peterson v. Suffolk County Police Department

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying a claimant's second workers' compensation claim. The claimant sustained a left knee injury after slipping on ice on January 1, 1997, for which her initial claim was established. Subsequently, she developed right knee pain and filed a second claim, alleging a causal relationship to the original accident. Conflicting medical opinions were presented by her treating physician, Patrick De Rosa, and the employer's orthopedic specialist, Andrew Dowd, regarding the causal link. The Board found no causal relationship, and the appellate court affirmed, deferring to the Board's discretion in assessing medical credibility.

Workers' CompensationRight Knee InjuryLeft Knee InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceConflicting TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSlipped and FellInjury Causation
References
1
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. 535740
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Lidia Orrego

Claimant Lidia M. Orrego, a nanny, filed a workers' compensation claim in September 2019, alleging an occupational disease after being discharged in November 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, discrediting the claimant's testimony and noting the claim appeared to be an afterthought. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no support for the claimant's contentions of conspiracy and fraud, and concluding that the Board did not act arbitrarily or abuse its discretion.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseReconsiderationBoard ReviewFraud AllegationsCredibilityNanny EmploymentAppellate DivisionDenial of ClaimPro Se Appeal
References
2
Case No. 535283
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Racheal Brown

Claimant Racheal L. Brown, a phlebotomist, appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, her claim for right wrist tendonitis was established as an occupational disease, but right carpal tunnel syndrome was disallowed. Claimant later sought to amend her claim to include consequential right carpal tunnel syndrome after surgery, which the WCLJ initially allowed but the Board subsequently disallowed. The Board also deemed her rebuttal application deficient. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting the rebuttal for incompleteness and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's denial of the consequential carpal tunnel syndrome claim, as claimant failed to establish a causal connection by competent medical evidence. The court also affirmed the Board's modification of the degree of disability to mild, based on established conditions.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRight Wrist TendonitisCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionsDisability RateMedical EvidenceAdministrative Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 19,248 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