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 Mott v. ITT Industries

A claimant, who performed clerical duties for the employer for over 27 years, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2006 and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the disallowance of the claim as time-barred pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, noting that despite the claimant's prior awareness of work-related symptoms, the Board failed to establish the crucial date of disablement. Without this finding, the conclusion regarding the claim being time-barred could not be supported. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementAppellate ProcedureClaim DisallowanceReversalRemittiturLegal InterpretationCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hazzard v. Adams Russell Cable Services

Claimant, a line technician, sustained a left knee injury in January 1987 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until August 1995. The employer's carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a contention upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that a C-4 medical report from 1987 or an advance payment of compensation should have prevented the claim from being time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that the C-4 report was filed with the Board within the two-year statutory period, nor that the employer or carrier made an advance payment to waive the statute of limitations.

Workers' CompensationTime-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentMedical ReportBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryLine Technician
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1997

Claim of Crawford v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who sustained a finger injury from a hypodermic needle in 1987. After an initial workers' compensation award, the case was reopened in 1993 when the claimant asserted a claim for a consequential posttraumatic neurosis or 'AIDS reaction phobia'. The employer argued that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 barred the psychiatric claim. However, the Board rejected this argument and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision to address the psychiatric condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Section 28 does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries if a relationship exists between the subsequent claim and the initial injury.

Psychiatric Injury ClaimStatute of Limitations Workers' CompConsequential Psychological InjuriesHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS Reaction PhobiaWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSection 28 BarAmendment of Timely ClaimCausally Related Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2002

Claim of Petitt v. Eaton & Van Winkle

The claimant was injured in a 1993 elevator accident but did not file a workers' compensation claim until 1999. The Workers' Compensation Board dismissed the claim as time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which mandates dismissal if a claim is not filed within two years of the accident. On appeal, the claimant argued the employer and carrier waived the § 28 defense by failing to timely raise it and by making advance payments. The Board found the defense was timely raised at the first hearing and determined that the employer's one-day wage payment was sick leave, not an advance payment of compensation. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTime-Barred ClaimWaiver DefenseAdvance Payment of CompensationSick Leave PolicyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionElevator Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the claimant's cervical spine injury claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 because it was filed more than two years after the 2010 work-related accident, which initially caused back and leg injuries. Although the claimant argued that a carrier's payment for a 2010 CT scan constituted an advance payment of compensation, the court disagreed, noting the CT scan did not reveal neck abnormalities at the time and subsequent treatment focused on other injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the neck injury claim was untimely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryAdvance Payment of CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate DivisionNew YorkWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Guardian Purchasing Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in May 1988, for which benefits were approved. In November 2002, while working for a different employer, claimant developed neck pain and sought to reopen the 1988 case to include this new injury. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the application to reopen was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, and the carrier was discharged from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that a 1989 medical report was not timely filed nor sufficient to constitute a claim for neck injury. Additionally, the claimant failed to substantiate the assertion that the carrier waived the statute of limitations through an advance payment.

Time-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNeck Injury ClaimBack InjuryMedical Report SufficiencyAdvance Payment of CompensationWaiver of LimitationsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

Catapane v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District

Barbara Catapane, a special education paraprofessional, sustained injuries when her car was struck by a school bus owned by her employer, Half Hollow Hills Central School District, and operated by a co-employee, James M. Campbell, on school property. Catapane filed a personal injury action, which the defendants sought to dismiss via summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusivity provision as the injury occurred during employment. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied this motion. The Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that primary jurisdiction for determining the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law rests with the Workers’ Compensation Board. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for referral to the Board to ascertain the parties' rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPrimary JurisdictionSuffolk CountyEmployer LiabilityCo-employee LiabilityExclusivity ProvisionRemittal
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ford v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a public relations director, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 1994 due to work-related posttraumatic stress disorder, but later withdrew the claim in March 1997 due to a parallel federal civil rights action, leading to its closure without a decision on merits. In March 2003, claimant sought to reopen the case, which the Workers' Compensation Board denied in February 2004, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 123 as a bar. The Board subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review in July 2004, prompting the claimant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no new evidence was presented for reconsideration and that the Board had properly determined the claim was truly closed and time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as over seven years had lapsed since the accident. Consequently, the appellate decision concluded that the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialTime-Barred ClaimPosttraumatic Stress DisorderFederal Civil Rights ActionJurisdictionReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 21,875 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