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

Yerry v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant, a member of the Board, who sustained a compensable industrial accident on April 21, 1976. The claimant suffered a foot injury which was subsequently aggravated by work activities, leading to thrombophlebitis of the right leg and pulmonary emboli, requiring surgery. The Board, in decisions filed December 7, 1977, and August 10, 1978, found that the claimant's work activities aggravated the condition, establishing a causal relation based on testimony. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence to sustain the Board's determination and deemed it unnecessary to consider the personal act doctrine. Costs were awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the appellant State Insurance Fund.

Industrial AccidentAggravated InjuryThrombophlebitisPulmonary EmbolismCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidencePersonal Act DoctrineAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundBoard Decision Affirmance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1993

Claim of Kroeger v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding death benefits to a claimant, the widow of a Workers' Compensation Board Commissioner. The decedent collapsed and died from an intercranial pontine hemorrhage after work. The Board found his death causally related to job stress, despite his pre-existing conditions (obesity, hypertension, arteriosclerosis). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court noted conflicting medical testimony regarding the causal link between work stress and death but upheld the Board’s prerogative to weigh such evidence. Ultimately, the Board's decision to award death benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipJob StressIntercranial Pontine HemorrhageMedical Testimony ConflictPre-existing ConditionsDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08227
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Matter of Kelly v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

In 2006, claimant Grace Kelly established a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) repeatedly sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, which was denied by Workers' Compensation Law Judges. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these denials and assessed $500 penalties against both SIF and its counsel, Walsh and Hacker, for filing an application for review without reasonable grounds. Walsh and Hacker appealed the penalty imposed against them to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support the Board's finding that Walsh and Hacker's application lacked reasonable grounds, and therefore reversed the penalty against them, modifying and affirming the Board's decision.

PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAttorney SanctionsAdministrative LawBoard DecisionJudiciary Law § 431
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Board

Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc. (TRL), a Pennsylvania common carrier, appealed decisions by the New York Workers' Compensation Board that denied its applications for redetermination of civil penalties. The penalties were imposed because TRL allegedly failed to secure New York workers' compensation insurance, despite having coverage in Pennsylvania. TRL contended that its interstate operations and Pennsylvania base exempted it from New York's requirements. The Board had relied on an earlier Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decision concerning an employee, Clarence Edick, which characterized TRL as a 'covered employer in NY.' The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decisions, concluding that TRL was entitled to a hearing to litigate the fundamental jurisdictional issue of its obligation under Workers' Compensation Law § 50, as the Edick proceeding did not definitively resolve this broader question.

Civil PenaltiesDue Process RightsJurisdictional DisputesInterstate EmployerInsurance ObligationAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureRemand OrderStatutory ComplianceProcedural Safeguards
References
3
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1988

Claim of De Carr v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

The claimant, an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, suffered a broken nose while playing softball in an off-duty State agency league. The Board initially found the injury compensable, citing the use of State-owned fields, interoffice mail, and employer equipment for league activities. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, referencing a 1983 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (1) which limits benefits for off-duty athletic injuries to instances of employer-required participation, compensation, or overt sponsorship. The court determined that the Board's cited factors constituted only incidental contact rather than overt employer encouragement or sponsorship, thus dismissing the claim as the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 10(1)off-duty athletic injuryemployer sponsorship criteriaincidental employer contactreversal of Board decisionclaim dismissalcompensability of sports injuriesstatutory interpretationWorkers' Compensation Board appeal1983 amendment impact
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, consisting of group self-insured trusts (GSITs), initiated a proceeding to challenge assessments levied by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (former [f]). They argued that the statute was inapplicable to GSITs and that the Board failed to meet statutory prerequisites for the assessments. The Supreme Court annulled the assessments on the grounds that the Board failed to satisfy prerequisites, although it deemed the statute applicable to GSITs. Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court’s finding that the statute was applicable. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, determining that petitioners were not aggrieved by the judgment as they had received the relief sought—the annulment of the assessments. The court also clarified that collateral estoppel would not apply to the interpretation of the statute, which is a pure question of law, and that the discovery issue was academic.

Group Self-Insured TrustsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAssessmentsAnnulmentAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Declaratory Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1993

Empire Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Board

Empire Insurance Company denied Hugh Wofsy's no-fault benefits claim, alleging he was a Dial-a-Car, Inc. employee requiring Workers' Compensation. An Administrative Law Judge later found Wofsy an independent contractor, denying him Workers' Compensation. Empire sought to reopen the Workers' Compensation claim to participate, which the Board denied. Empire then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the IAS Court allowed the reopening and ordered Empire to pay Wofsy, with potential reimbursement. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this judgment, dismissing Empire's petition, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 23 vests exclusive appeal jurisdiction with the Third Department and precludes article 78 proceedings for reviewing Board decisions' substance.

No-fault insuranceIndependent contractor disputeEmployee status determinationCPLR Article 78 proceedingAppellate Division jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Law § 23Judicial review of administrative decisionsInsurance coverage disputeAdministrative Law Judge rulingReimbursement claim
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 30,944 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