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 Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Guarascio v. Spargo Wire Co.

The claimant, a truck driver, suffered work-related back and shoulder injuries in October 1995. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier paid benefits. In 2000, the carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) for these payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim in 2002 and later found the claimant permanently partially disabled, ruling on apportionment but deferring the reimbursement issue. The WCLJ subsequently found the carrier’s request for reimbursement timely. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. This appeal concerns the Board’s ruling that the carrier’s C-250 claim for reimbursement was timely filed within the statutory 52-week period, despite the underlying claim documents being posted by the Board in 2000.

ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundTimeliness of ClaimPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawPreexisting ImpairmentWork-related InjuryC-250 ClaimStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 534672
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Delon Nelson

The claimant, Delon A. Nelson, appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The case involved an established claim for work-related injuries, for which the self-insured employer, NYC Health & Hospital Corp., continued to pay claimant's wages during a period of disability. The employer sought reimbursement for these wages against a schedule loss of use award previously made to the claimant. The claimant argued that the employer had waived its right to reimbursement by not requesting it before the award was made or by failing to object to a proposed decision. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the employer, finding its reimbursement request timely, and denied claimant's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the employer's earlier filing of a C-669 form constituted a timely request for reimbursement under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a), and denying reimbursement would result in unjust enrichment for the claimant.

Wage ReimbursementWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseAdvance PaymentsEmployer Reimbursement ClaimTimeliness of ClaimUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionsPermanent Partial Disability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2015

Matter of Newbill v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation crew chief, injured his right ankle and foot at work and was awarded disability benefits. His self-insured employer paid his full weekly wages during a period of disability and timely sought reimbursement for these advanced payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the employer's reimbursement request against a 20% schedule loss of use award for the right foot. The Board affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed, arguing that reimbursement should not cover periods where no compensation awards were initially made. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that an employer is entitled to full reimbursement from a schedule loss of use award for advanced wages paid during disability, as schedule awards are not allocable to specific periods of lost work.

Schedule Loss of UseReimbursementAdvanced Wage PaymentsDisability BenefitsEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityTimely Claim
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02913 [217 AD3d 1021]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Nelson v. NYC Health & Hosp. Corp.

The claimant appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the employer's entitlement to reimbursement for wages paid during a period of disability. The claimant sustained work-related injuries and received full wages from the self-insured employer, who had filed a timely C-669 form requesting reimbursement. The Workers' Compensation Board granted the employer's reimbursement request, finding it timely and necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a), the employer was entitled to reimbursement for wage payments made during disability, provided the claim was filed before an award of compensation, which occurred in this case. The court concluded that denying reimbursement would result in duplicate benefits for the claimant, which is disfavored.

Workers' CompensationWage ReimbursementEmployer CreditSchedule Loss of UseDisability PaymentsUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewC-669 formTimeliness of RequestAdvance Payments
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Iamiceli v. American Telephone & Telegraph

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding an employer's entitlement to reimbursement. The claimant suffered a right arm injury in 1987. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded schedule loss of use and credited the self-insured employer for $6,144.30. Claimant’s counsel objected to this reimbursement. The Workers’ Compensation Board later found that the employer had failed to make a timely written or oral request for reimbursement prior to the award, and thus was not entitled to it. The employer appealed this finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) requires a timely request before the compensation award is made.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementTimely RequestSchedule Loss of UseEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewProcedural ComplianceCompensation Award
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2005

Claim of Bailey v. Verizon

Claimant, a field technician, sustained a work-related injury to his right knee in February 2004 and received wages from his employer while unable to work, concurrently filing for workers’ compensation benefits. After a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially denied the employer's request for reimbursement of paid wages due to procedural non-compliance, the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) modified this decision, finding a valid oral reimbursement request was made. On appeal, the Court reversed the Board's determination, concluding that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the finding of an oral reimbursement request made prior to the compensation award. The Court cited Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a), which conditions reimbursement on a timely request, and found the Board's reliance on a "scratch sheet" indicating a future filing, not a past request, to be insufficient. Consequently, the decision was reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s ruling.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Reimbursement RequestOral Request for ReimbursementSubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a)WCLJ DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewAppellate DivisionRemittalClaimant's Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1980

Claim of Caliguire v. Lansingburgh Central School District

The claimant, a teacher, was injured and received workers' compensation, as well as advance wage payments from the Lansingburgh Central School District. The State Insurance Fund requested full reimbursement for these advanced wages, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The claimant appealed, contending that the employer's right to reimbursement was waived by failing to file a timely claim and through a contractual waiver in the collective bargaining agreement. The court disagreed, finding a timely request for reimbursement was made and no language of waiver in the contract, thus affirming the Board's decision.

Workers’ CompensationWage ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationWaiverTimely FilingEmployer RightsInsurance Fund AppealNew York Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,918 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