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 Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Christopher

The court considered a petition by the Broome County Social Services Department for an extension of placement for the child Elizabeth. Elizabeth was placed in foster care following the death of her half-brother, for which her mother, Sally, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Despite the Department's placement of Elizabeth with her mother during the proceedings, the court found Sally lacked credibility, insight, and responsibility for her actions. Expert testimony from two clinical psychologists highlighted the high risk to Elizabeth in her mother's care due to the mother's personality issues and lack of accountability. The court granted the extension of placement for 12 months but ordered Elizabeth's removal from her mother's home, directing the Department to place her in an appropriate alternative setting while both parents receive necessary services.

Child WelfareFamily Court ActExtension of PlacementChild AbuseCriminally Negligent HomicideParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildPsychological EvaluationCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Busch v. Lewis

The court addressed two motions. Firstly, a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was considered and subsequently denied, with the imposition of ten dollars in costs. Secondly, a motion seeking an extension of time to answer was reviewed. This motion was granted, allowing the respondent an additional five days to answer following the service of the order. The decision was rendered by a panel of judges including Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore, and Cohn, JJ.

Leave to Appeal DeniedExtension of Time GrantedAppellate ProcedureCourt CostsService of Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1986

In re Belinda B.

The appellate court reviewed a Family Court order that dismissed a petition by the Monroe County Department of Social Services (DSS) for an extension of foster care placement for two children, Belinda and Carol Sue. The Family Court had found that DSS failed to prove the natural parents' inability to care for their children. The appellate court affirmed this finding but modified the order, remitting the case for a hearing to determine the best interests of the children. The court emphasized that even if parents are deemed fit, extraordinary circumstances, such as extended foster care and pending permanent neglect proceedings, necessitate a best interests determination before the children are immediately returned to their natural parents. The decision highlighted the procedural complexities and suggested legislative review.

Child NeglectFoster Care ExtensionParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ProcedureAppellate ReviewChild WelfareMonroe CountyLaw GuardianDSS
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Farrell Lines, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which had dismissed a longshoreman's personal injury action against a vessel owner as time-barred. The original dismissal was based on New York's three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214, subd 5) and the precedent of McCoy v American Israeli Shipping Co. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, holding that the timeliness of such actions must be determined under Federal maritime law. The court emphasized that under Federal law, laches is the sole standard for untimeliness, not a fixed statute of limitations. This ruling ensures a uniform application of negligence remedies for longshoremen, determining that the prior McCoy precedent no longer represents the law in New York.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuryStatute of LimitationsFederal Maritime LawLachesVessel Owner NegligenceAppellate ReviewCPLR 214Precedent OverruledUniform Federal Rule
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2000

Claim of Velasquez v. Tony's Taxi, Inc.

The case is an appeal brought by Tony's Taxi, Inc. against a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had deemed Tony's Taxi's applications for review and rehearing of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) rulings as untimely. The WCLJ initially established an employer/employee relationship between Tony's Taxi and the claimant, and subsequently penalized Tony's Taxi for being uninsured. Tony's Taxi contended that the lack of the claimant's tax returns negated the employment proof and that the Board erred in its timeliness determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in denying the rehearing application due to a lack of new evidence and upholding the dismissal of the review application as untimely.

timelinessemployer-employee relationshipuninsured employerpenalty assessmentrehearing applicationappellate reviewadministrative lawprocedural errorevidence admissibilitytax return requirement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almoravids v. Chase Manhattan Bank

The employer-respondent moved to dismiss an appeal as untimely. The Board had previously affirmed a referee's determination in June 1977, disallowing a claim. The appellant did not appeal this decision but sought reconsideration. In December 1977, the Board advised no further action was warranted. In January 1978, the appellant requested an appeal of both the June and December 1977 determinations. The appeal from the June 1977 decision was deemed untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, leading to the granting of the employer-respondent's motion to dismiss that appeal. The appellant's separate motion for an extension of time to prosecute the appeal was also denied without costs.

Appeal DismissalUntimely AppealWorkers' Compensation LawMotion GrantedMotion DeniedExtension of TimeBoard DecisionReconsideration Request
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 805 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