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

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Endicott Johnson Corp.

The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.

Appellate ProcedurePermission to AppealCourt of AppealsStay of ProceedingsJudicial Panel
References
1
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
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

Ovadia v. Office of Industrial Board of Appeals

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2007

Lazier v. Strickland Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant Styles Steel Erecting & Steel Fabrications and a cross-appeal by the defendant third-party plaintiff 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. The appeals concern an action to recover damages for personal injuries, specifically focusing on motions to set aside a jury verdict regarding fault apportionment and to strike expert witness testimony. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the motion to set aside the verdict finding 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. 70% at fault was affirmed, as no evidence showed its authority to supervise the work. The court also affirmed the denial of Styles Steel's motion to strike expert testimony and to set aside the jury's finding of 30% fault against it, concluding there was a valid line of reasoning for the jury's verdict, including the finding of a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and appeals from earlier orders were dismissed as superseded by the final order.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictFault ApportionmentExpert WitnessCPLR 4404CPLR 3101Labor Law 200Workers' Compensation Law 11Grave InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involves an appeal concerning a minimum wage order for fast-food workers. The Commissioner of Labor, following a wage board's recommendation, implemented a minimum wage increase for fast-food workers in chains with 30 or more national establishments, a decision confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The petitioner challenged the wage order and the IBA's confirmation on grounds of mootness, separation of powers, and violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court rejected all arguments, determining the appeal was not moot despite subsequent legislative action, and found the wage order to be within the Commissioner's delegated authority and not discriminatory under the Commerce Clause. Consequently, the court affirmed the determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, upholding the minimum wage increase for fast-food workers.

Minimum WageFast-Food IndustryWage BoardIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborAppellate ReviewSeparation of PowersDormant Commerce ClauseLabor LawAdministrative Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Rigby v. Brisky Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff appealed and defendants cross-appealed an order concerning a personal injury action arising from a workplace accident. Plaintiff sustained a groin strain while working on an elevated surface, guiding a truss lifted by a forklift, accidentally trapping his finger. The Supreme Court initially denied both plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court granted parts of the cross-motion, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) causes of action, concluding that plaintiff's injury did not result from a fall or the direct application of gravity, and a safety device would not have prevented it. The Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was sustained.

Personal InjuryLabor LawCommon-law NegligenceElevated WorkForklift AccidentSummary JudgmentCross-MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryGravity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Noel v. Owens-Brockway

The employer appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from March 15, 2000, which deemed their application for review untimely and also affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision on the merits. The appellate court noted that the Board possessed discretionary authority to review beyond the 30-day period and had, in fact, addressed the merits of the appeal. Despite the employer challenging only the timeliness on appeal, the court found no reason to disturb the Board’s decision, as its alternative ruling on the merits remained unchallenged, thus providing no grounds for relief.

untimelinessworkers' compensation appealboard reviewdiscretionary authoritymerits reviewunchallenged rulingaffirmationappellate procedureWorkers' Compensation Lawjudicial review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 25,497 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