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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn v. New York Times

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether the narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine, established in Wieder v Skala, applies to a physician employed by a nonmedical entity like the New York Times. Dr. Sheila E. Horn, formerly Associate Medical Director, alleged wrongful termination for refusing to disclose confidential employee medical records without consent and for not misinforming employees about workers' compensation eligibility, citing professional ethical standards. While lower courts extended the Wieder exception, which applied to lawyers in a common professional enterprise, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that Horn's role involved corporate management responsibilities related to workers' compensation and did not constitute the 'very core' of her employment in the same way as a lawyer's professional services to a law firm's clients. Therefore, the ethical rules cited did not impose a mutual obligation between Horn and the Times to practice law in compliance with specific professional codes, as required for the Wieder exception.

At-will employmentBreach of contractPhysician-patient privilegeProfessional ethicsCorporate employmentRetaliatory dischargeWieder v Skala exceptionEmployment lawConfidentialityMedical director
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1994

In re the Claim of Bates

The claimant appealed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The claimant was employed as a food service worker and informed the employer he would be returning to school and could only work part-time. It was agreed that the claimant would be replaced as the job was a full-time position. Although the claimant left employment, he did not enter school and was consequently available for full-time employment. The court found that these facts supported the Board’s decision that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary SeparationGood CausePart-time EmploymentFull-time EmploymentSchool EnrollmentBenefit DisqualificationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed DecisionWork Availability
References
0
Case No. 17 NY3d 702
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of the Industrial Board of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a general contractor, HOD Construction Corp., acted as a joint employer of its subcontractor Well Built Construction Corp.'s masonry workers, thereby owing them unpaid wages. The lower courts had found joint employment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the standard contractor/subcontractor relationship during the bulk of the project did not establish joint employment under the Labor Law. The Court determined that factors relied upon by the Board were common in construction and did not indicate direct control or functional supervision by HOD over Well Built's employees. However, the case was remitted to the Industrial Board of Appeals for a determination on whether HOD's owner made an enforceable promise to pay the workers for a specific six-day period after the subcontractor abandoned the project, which could establish an employment relationship for that limited time.

Joint EmploymentSubcontractor LiabilityUnpaid WagesGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityLabor LawEconomic Reality TestAppellate ReviewRemittalConstruction IndustryWorkers' Rights
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Findling v. Community General Hospital

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in July 1995 and subsequently experienced intermittent lost time from work. In April 1998, claimant was awarded eight weeks of intermittent lost time, but sought review from the Workers’ Compensation Board, submitting a spreadsheet that indicated 13 weeks of lost time. The Board declined to consider the merits of her application, categorizing the spreadsheet as new evidence and citing claimant's failure to explain its prior non-submission. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in deeming the spreadsheet new evidence, a point the employer conceded. This error precluded the Board from fulfilling its fact-finding role and deprived the claimant of a review on the merits. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the case remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationIntermittent Lost TimeEvidence AdmissibilityBoard ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorAppellate Court DecisionDisability BenefitsFact-Finding RoleClaimant Rights
References
1
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

In re the Claim of Novak

The claimant, a social worker, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits after her employment was terminated due to misconduct. She was found to have falsified her time sheet for April 9, 2007, by indicating she was performing patient services while she was actually observed at a local casino. Although she admitted to being at the casino, she insisted she performed the services at a different time. The employer's code of conduct required high integrity and accurate time records, which were crucial due to federal funding. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concluded that her actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, and this decision was subsequently affirmed.

misconductfalsified time sheetsocial workerunemployment benefitsemployer policyadministrative appealsubstantial evidencedisqualificationcasino visitintegrity standards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Guardian Purchasing Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in May 1988, for which benefits were approved. In November 2002, while working for a different employer, claimant developed neck pain and sought to reopen the 1988 case to include this new injury. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the application to reopen was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, and the carrier was discharged from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that a 1989 medical report was not timely filed nor sufficient to constitute a claim for neck injury. Additionally, the claimant failed to substantiate the assertion that the carrier waived the statute of limitations through an advance payment.

Time-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNeck Injury ClaimBack InjuryMedical Report SufficiencyAdvance Payment of CompensationWaiver of LimitationsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Kokoni

National Freelancers, Inc. (NFI), a company referring skilled clerical workers, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had found NFI liable for unemployment insurance contributions for a claimant and other similarly situated workers, determining an employer-employee relationship existed. This appeal followed a prior remittal by the court due to NFI being denied the opportunity to cross-examine the claimant. In the renewed proceedings, the Board struck the claimant's testimony but sustained its finding based on other evidence, including testimony from NFI's president. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board correctly interpreted the prior remittal order and that substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship finding. The court also rejected NFI's argument regarding the claimant's voluntary unemployment, stating the issue was not timely raised.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorTemporary StaffingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewDue ProcessCross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceWaiver
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mickelson v. Value Construction

Claimant, a carpenter, sought workers' compensation benefits for a left wrist injury in April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the claim time-barred but later rescinded that decision, establishing the claim with a disablement date of May 6, 2013, corresponding to the diagnosis of a work-related ligament injury and arthritis. The employer and carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding regarding the timely filing and date of disablement, noting it was supported by substantial evidence, despite the claimant's earlier symptoms. However, the Court found that the Board failed to address a previously raised issue concerning whether the left wrist injury was consequentially related to a 2003 right wrist injury. Consequently, the Court modified the Board's decision by remitting the matter for further proceedings to address this unadjudicated issue.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimDate of DisablementOccupational DiseaseLeft Wrist InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLigament InjuryArthritisMedical DiagnosisRemittal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 26,819 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