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. ADJ6937263
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

PAUL ESCUDERO vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cisco Systems' petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Cisco failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Specifically, the employer did not provide legally required notices, and the applicant's vague consultation with a civil attorney did not constitute sufficient actual knowledge to start the statute of limitations. The Board also noted that actual knowledge cannot be imputed solely by an employee's representation by counsel.

Statute of limitationsTollingActual knowledgeWorkers' compensation rightsEmployer noticeCivil attorneyImputed knowledgePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1982

Cicio v. City of New York

The City of New York appealed an order that granted a sanitation employee's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner was severely injured in the line of duty on January 12, 1982, and his attorney served the notice of claim one day late due to inadvertence. Special Term granted the application for a late notice. The City argued that Special Term lacked discretion because the delay was inexcusable and that notice to the Sanitation Department should not be equated with actual knowledge by the City. The court affirmed the order, holding that statutory amendments to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) are to be liberally construed and that all relevant factors, including prejudice and actual knowledge, must be considered. The court found the delay minimal, no prejudice to the City, and that the City obtained actual knowledge through an accident report. The court also admonished the City's counsel for failing to cite adverse controlling authorities in their brief.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawSection 50-eDiscretion of CourtActual KnowledgePrejudice to MunicipalityProfessional ObligationsAppellate PracticeAffirmancePer Curiam
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1999

McLaughlin v. North Colonie Central School District

Petitioner, an employee injured in July 1998 while working on a construction project owned by the respondent, moved in March 1999 to serve a late notice of claim, significantly past the 90-day statutory period. The Supreme Court denied this application. On appeal, the petitioner argued that his delay should be excused due to his unawareness of the severity of his injuries and the respondent's timely knowledge of the incident. However, the Appellate Division found no supporting affidavit from the petitioner or medical evidence, thus dismissing the excuse offered by counsel. The court also rejected the argument that the general contractor's knowledge could be imputed to the respondent, citing a lack of evidence of actual timely knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the motion was affirmed, as there was no viable excuse for the delay or proof of the respondent's timely actual knowledge.

Late notice of claimmunicipal liabilityconstruction site accidentactual knowledgeimputed knowledgejudicial discretionworkers' compensation claimpersonal injuryappealprocedural law
References
3
Case No. ADJ10425864, ADJ7159539
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

GHASSAN MOSRIE vs. CHURCH OF THE CHIMES, GUIDEONE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant's 2008 injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined that imputed knowledge from the applicant's attorney does not constitute actual knowledge for tolling purposes. The employer's failure to provide statutory notice of rights, coupled with the applicant's lack of actual knowledge, prejudiced the applicant. Therefore, the Board found the applicant's claim for the November 8, 2008 injury is not barred by the statute of limitations, deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsTollingClaim FormNotice of Potential EligibilityWaiverMandatory Settlement ConferenceAffirmative DefenseActual Knowledge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

184 West 10th Street Corp. v. Marvits

Judge McCooe's dissenting opinion argues that the tenant failed to prove the landlord had actual knowledge of her openly and notoriously harbored cats, a prerequisite for waiving a 'no pet' lease provision under Administrative Code of City of New York § 27-2009.1 (b). The dissent criticizes the majority for shifting the burden of proof, mischaracterizing an independent contractor as an agent, and not strictly applying the 'actual knowledge' requirement as established in Seward Park Hous. Corp. v Cohen. McCooe asserts that the tenant's evidence of knowledge was speculative, as her cats usually hid, and workers were not present long-term. Ultimately, the dissenting judge concludes that the trial court's determination that the landlord did not waive its right to enforce the no-pet provision should be affirmed.

Pet PolicyLease WaiverOpen and NotoriousActual KnowledgeIndependent ContractorAgency LawBurden of ProofAdministrative CodeNew York LawLandlord-Tenant Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2001

Claim of Oberson v. Bureau of Ferry Aviation & Transportation

The claimant was terminated from his employment as a marine oiler after a physical altercation with his supervisor in January 1993. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming a compensable psychological injury from the altercation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim due to the claimant's failure to timely notify the employer of his injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Although the employer had actual knowledge of the altercation and termination, there was no indication they had actual knowledge of a psychological injury stemming from the altercation until 1999, approximately six years later. The Board's determination that the employer did not have timely notice and was prejudiced by the delay was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation NoticePsychological Injury ClaimTimeliness of NoticeEmployer PrejudiceActual KnowledgeWorkplace AltercationEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmationAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coffey v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets North

On December 20, 2004, a claimant sustained a hip injury after slipping and falling at work. Although Workers' Compensation Law § 18 requires written notice within 30 days, the claimant filed her report approximately four months later. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, finding that the employer had actual knowledge of the accident because a coworker witnessed it and informed the assistant manager, who then aided the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant discussed her injury with the employer's manager in January 2005. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that actual knowledge on the part of the employer negates the requirement for timely written notice.

Workers CompensationHip InjurySlip and FallNotice RequirementActual KnowledgeEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionTimely NoticeExcused Notice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2011

Claim of Wiess v. Mittal

Claimant, a steel worker from 1965 to 2008, filed an occupational hearing loss claim. His initial employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, was succeeded by Arcelor Mittal. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned the award based on the claimant's length of service with each employer. Bethlehem appealed, arguing Arcelor had not satisfied notice requirements and challenging the apportionment method. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Bethlehem had actual knowledge of the claimant's hearing loss through annual testing and credible testimony, and affirmed apportionment based on length of service. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no error in the Board's findings regarding actual knowledge or apportionment method.

Occupational hearing lossApportionmentActual knowledgeNotice requirementsEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-eeMedical evidenceBurden of proofAdverse inferenceIndustrial injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Halloran v. City of New York

The petitioner, a police officer, sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York for injuries sustained from toxic substance exposure during World Trade Center rescue and recovery operations. The court evaluated the reasonableness of the petitioner's delay in filing, the City's actual knowledge of the claim, and any potential prejudice to the City. It was determined that the petitioner had a reasonable excuse for the delay, attributed to the gradual manifestation of symptoms, and that the City possessed sufficient actual knowledge due to the widespread awareness of WTC-related health issues. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice to the City's ability to investigate the claim. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the notice of claim was deemed timely filed.

World Trade CenterToxic ExposureLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficerRespiratory Illness9/11Municipal LiabilitySpecial ProceedingInjury Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Lewis v. East Ramapo Central School District

This case concerns an appeal by the East Ramapo Central School District against an order that granted a petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court considered four factors for granting leave: actual knowledge of the claim by the school district, the petitioner's infancy and its nexus to the delay, a reasonable excuse for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the school district. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the 15-month delay after reaching the age of majority and did not demonstrate that the school district had timely actual knowledge of the claim or that it would not be substantially prejudiced by the three-year-and-eight-month delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e(5)School District LiabilityNegligent SupervisionInfancy ExcuseActual Knowledge RequirementSubstantial PrejudiceAppellate DivisionAssault in SchoolTimeliness of Claim
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,290 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