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

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ7128393
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

TOMASA MARTINEZ vs. GUS JR.; FARMER'S INSURANCE COMPANY, Mid-Century Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and dismissed a petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to change venue from Los Angeles to Riverside, claiming the initial filing was untimely. However, their petition lacked the required verification and statement under penalty of perjury regarding notice receipt, thus failing to establish timeliness under WCAB Rule 10410. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, noting that the defendant could still seek venue change later based on good cause for witness convenience.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ7128393PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALCHANGE OF VENUERIVERSIDE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYWCJLABOR CODE SECTION 5501.5WCAB RULE 10410
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Mayo v. Rensselaer Polytech Institute

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to pay a penalty to a claimant under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 for failing to timely pay an award. The Special Fund appealed this decision, contending that the penalty provision applied only to employers or insurance carriers, not to them. The court, however, disagreed with the Special Fund's interpretation. Citing prior case law, the court held that the Special Fund, once liable for compensation benefits due to the passage of time, stands in the shoes of the carrier regarding the obligation to make timely payments. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision to impose the penalty, emphasizing the legislative policy for prompt compensation payments to injured workers.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyTimely PaymentStatutory InterpretationSpecial FundReopened CasesInsurance CarrierAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionLegislative Intent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banton v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after the claimant was injured. Counsel sought a change of venue, citing a purported "Board Rule 10.01 (1) (c)" which the Workers’ Compensation Board found to be non-existent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request and assessed penalties against counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) and (ii). On administrative appeal, the Board rescinded the penalty under § 114-a (3) (i) but increased the penalty under § 114-a (3) (ii) due to the appeal lacking reasonable basis. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that counsel had been previously warned about citing the inaccurate "Board Rule" and that clarification on venue application rules was available before the administrative appeal was filed.

Attorney MisconductVenue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative AppealSubstantial EvidenceLegal TreatiseProcedural MotionUnreasonable GroundsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hart v. Pageprint/Dekalb

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed a late payment penalty on an employer's carrier. The claimant, suffering from permanent partial disability due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, entered into a waiver agreement with the carrier for $35,200. Although the Board approved the agreement without a hearing, the carrier paid the claimant 20 days after approval, exceeding the 10-day limit, leading to a $7,040 penalty. The appellate court found the streamlined procedures used for approval invalid because they conflicted with 12 NYCRR 300.36, meaning the agreement was never properly approved and thus the 10-day limitations period for payment never commenced. Consequently, the penalty imposition was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for a proper hearing on the agreement.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Late Payment PenaltyWaiver AgreementBoard ApprovalStreamlined ProceduresAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardOccupational Disease
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. ADJ7981413; ADJ2876358
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORI WILLIAMS vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant Lori Williams filed a petition to disqualify WCJ Elizabeth Dehn, alleging bias due to inexperience, ignored medical treatment requests, and lack of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition and the WCJ's report. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition, citing that the petition lacked detailed facts under penalty of perjury as required by WCAB Rule 10960 and failed to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and (g). The WCJ stated that no rulings were made on medical treatment or penalties during the status conference, and denied any bias.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ DisqualificationLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641BiasEnmityUnqualified OpinionAffidavitsDeclaration Under Penalty of PerjuryVerified Allegations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,213 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