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
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. 78107628
Regular Panel Decision

Stojanov v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 10, 2008, which ruled that his applications for review were untimely. These claims stemmed from 1981 work-related accidents, reopened in 2008 with liability transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied compensation in May 2008, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The Board found claimant's applications for review, mailed on the 30th day but received later, were untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 requires filing within 30 days, not just mailing.

timelinessSpecial FundBoard reviewappealWCLJ decisionfiling deadlinemailed applicationamended decisionstatutory interpretationadministrative review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkinson v. Bendix Friction Corp.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim after being diagnosed with a lung condition, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined in August 2003 was an occupational disease causally related to 1969 asbestos exposure while working for the employer, though not currently disabling. The claimant sought review. The Workers' Compensation Board, in January 2004, found the employer's rebuttals to be untimely. Subsequently, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review in February 2004, which the Board denied as untimely in October 2004. The employer appealed this denial. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application as untimely, given that the employer had received proper notice of the WCLJ decision.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureCausal RelationDisability ClaimAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2009

Lopez v. 395 Brook Realty Corp.

A claimant sought workers' compensation benefits after an alleged injury while employed by 395 Brook Realty Corporation, owned by David Damaghi. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Brook Realty subsequently filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board nearly two months after the WCLJ's decision, exceeding the 30-day statutory limit. The Board denied the application as untimely, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found no abuse of discretion by the Board, noting that Brook Realty failed to provide any explanation for the delay.

workers' compensationappeal timelinessadministrative lawjudicial reviewemployer liabilityprocedural due processstatutory interpretationboard discretionNew Yorklabor law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Backus v. Wesley Health Care Center, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the carrier’s application for review of a February 8, 2002 decision, deeming it untimely as it was filed more than two years after the WCLJ’s initial decision. The carrier had argued that the average weekly wage was miscalculated due to a mistaken assumption about salary payment frequency. The Board also denied the carrier's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion given the carrier’s failure to provide an explanation for the significant delay and the absence of new evidence warranting a rehearing.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsApplication TimelinessAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionRehearing DenialReconsideration DenialSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation LawNew York Regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Priola v. Andrews Staffing

Claimant, a truck driver, sustained work-related knee and back injuries in December 1998 and sought workers' compensation benefits. After initial awards, a WCLJ decision on October 4, 2001, apportioned 10% of the injury to the work accident and 90% to a prior non-work-related motor vehicle accident. Claimant's subsequent application for Board review was deemed untimely because the specific grounds for appeal were filed on November 15, 2001, beyond the 30-day statutory limit. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected the late application, and this court affirmed that decision.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of AppealBoard ReviewApportionmentProcedural IssuesWorkers' Compensation LawLate FilingJudicial Review
References
2
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. ADJ3344826
Regular
Nov 09, 2010

RONALD FRYER vs. CORNUCOPIA COMMUNITY MARKET, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an order to authorize medical treatment and pay bills, as well as dismissing the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in ordering reimbursement for bills not following Utilization Review, while the applicant claimed further wrongdoing and sought an award of benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition, and dismissed the applicant's petition as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Treatment AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Provider NetworkGym MembershipIndustrial InjuryUtilization ReviewApplicant
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,385 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