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 Johnson v. T.L. Cannon Management

Claimant, a broiler cook, allegedly sustained a work-related injury in February 2012 but delayed applying for workers' compensation benefits until April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, citing claimant's failure to provide timely notice to the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Court upheld the Board's determination, finding no grounds to overturn it. The Court emphasized the requirement for timely written notice of injury within 30 days, noting that while exceptions exist, excusing such failures remains within the Board's discretion, and the 14-month delay, coupled with the supervisor's lack of recall regarding an injury report, supported the Board's findings.

Workers’ CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident ReportingCredibility DeterminationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimAdministrative AppealWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Flynn v. Ace Hardware Corp.

A claimant, a forklift operator for Ace Hardware Corporation, suffered a neck injury and stopped working in April 2004, filing for workers' compensation benefits in June 2004. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, finding the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer within 30 days as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the employer was not informed of a work-related injury until June 30, 2004, and the claimant did not demonstrate that the delay was not prejudicial to the employer. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

Timely NoticeWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer PrejudiceWork-Related InjuryAppealBoard Decision30-Day Notice PeriodFamily Medical Leave ActDisability BenefitsSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02022
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Fernandez v. City of New York

Jose Fernandez, who was allegedly injured at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, sued the City of New York for personal injuries, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The City moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, as required by General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. Fernandez opposed, arguing that the notice of claim requirements were preempted by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Supreme Court granted the City's motion to dismiss and denied Fernandez's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the LHWCA does not alter the state law requirement for a timely notice of claim when pursuing state law causes of action against a non-maritime entity, and the proposed amendment alleging a federal maritime tort was meritless as the accident location was not subject to maritime jurisdiction.

Personal InjuryLabor LawNotice of ClaimLHWCAPreemptionMaritime TortAppellate ProcedureDismissalLeave to AmendBrooklyn Navy Yard
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2008

Koebel v. ew York State Comptroller

Petitioner, Rose J.E., sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from her observation and subsequent emergency duties related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied her application, citing a failure to provide timely written notice as mandated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 (c). The Supreme Court dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition, a decision that was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the petitioner's arguments that the widely-known events of 9/11, oral notice, her mental state as good cause, or an executive order suspending time limitations, satisfied or excused the notice requirement. The court found that the statute specifically requires notice of the member's injuries and incapacity, which the events of 9/11 alone would not convey. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the arguments regarding oral notice or the applicability of good cause exceptions or the Executive Order to extend the notice period.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder9/11 Terrorist AttacksTimely Written NoticeRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Good Cause ExceptionExecutive OrderWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 14,493 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