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

Trojcak v. Valiant Millwrighting & Warehousing, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the proper cancellation of an employer's workers' compensation policy. A claimant was injured in September 1995, leading to a dispute when the carrier claimed the policy was canceled in June 1995 due to nonpayment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the policy was improperly canceled, citing Banking Law § 576 and estoppel. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the cancellation adhered to Banking Law § 576's notice requirements. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory notice provisions were met and that the finance agency and carrier were not estopped from canceling the policy despite prior acceptance of late payments.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationBanking Law § 576Estoppel DoctrineNotice RequirementsLate PaymentsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy DefaultAppellate ReviewStatutory CompliancePremium Finance Agreement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cancel v. Mazzuca

Plaintiff Frankie Cancel, a Shi'a Muslim state prisoner, filed a civil rights action against thirty-one New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) employees, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to religious freedom and retaliation. Cancel claimed that DOCS's Islamic authorities, allegedly Sunni, discriminated against Shi'a inmates by denying separate religious services and proselytizing. The court addressed motions for partial summary judgment by Cancel and dismissal by defendants. The court dismissed most defendants and state law claims, finding that only claims against Imam Umar and Imam At-Tayeb survived dismissal for alleged direct discrimination and retaliation. It applied collateral estoppel to state court findings regarding significant doctrinal differences between Shi'a and Sunni Islam and violations of New York Correction Law § 610, but noted no preclusive effect on the federal constitutional claims. The court denied a motion to transfer venue, citing the burden of split trials.

Prisoner RightsReligious FreedomFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil Rights ActionDOCS (Department of Correctional Services)Shi'a IslamSunni IslamRetaliation ClaimsQualified Immunity
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2013

Bonilla v. Country Rotisserie

In November 2010, a claimant was injured and sought workers' compensation benefits. The workers' compensation carrier denied the claim, asserting the employer's policy had been canceled in August 2010 due to unpaid premiums. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the cancellation invalid due to improper notice, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the policy properly canceled and the employer uninsured. The employer appealed this Board decision, contending the notice requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) were not met. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the carrier had complied with the statutory requirements by sending the cancellation notice via certified mail to the address designated by the employer, which was the CEO's home address.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Cancellation NoticeEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewStatutory ComplianceCertified Mail ServiceDesignated AddressPolicy EndorsementWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalJudicial Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2000

Claim of Rue v. Northeast Timber Erectors, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling that Merchants Mutual was the employer's (Northeast Timber Erectors, Inc.) workers' compensation carrier on the date of a claimant's accident in July 1995, despite the carrier's assertion that it had properly cancelled the policy. The Appellate Division reviewed the appeal and found that the carrier failed to demonstrate strict compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding the notice of cancellation procedure, specifically by not proving it requested a return receipt for the certified mail. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that insurance coverage was still in effect at the time of the accident.

Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5)Insurance Policy CancellationCarrier LiabilityNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn ReceiptStrict ComplianceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Insurance Coverage
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Adebahr v. 3840 Orloff Avenue Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the lawful cancellation of a workers’ compensation insurance policy. The primary issue was whether the carrier's May 25, 1979 cancellation notice complied with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54(5), which mandates strict conformance for service via certified or registered mail with a return receipt. The carrier provided a return receipt with a date discrepancy and an acknowledgment form, but the Board found an insufficient nexus to the cancellation notice. The appellate court affirmed the Board's conclusion, agreeing that the carrier failed to establish strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements, citing the date discrepancy and a credibility question regarding the underwriter's testimony.

Insurance CancellationStatutory ComplianceCertified MailRegistered MailReturn ReceiptBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewCredibility QuestionPost-Office ErrorNotice Requirements
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07667
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2017

Matter of Osorio v. M & L Express, Inc.

Yerly Osorio filed a workers' compensation claim for head, neck, and back injuries from a July 2014 work accident. The employer acknowledged the work-related injuries. The core issue was whether the employer's workers' compensation policy was effectively canceled prior to the accident due to nonpayment, or if it remained in effect due to the carrier's failure to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) notice requirements. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found the carrier liable, ruling that there was insufficient proof of a nexus between the cancellation notice and its mailing. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's determination unsupported by substantial evidence, as the carrier had provided uncontroverted proof of proper certified mailing of the cancellation notice. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNotice RequirementsNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ObservanceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPolicy LiabilityMailing ProofCarrier Burden of Proof
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sarlo v. Antona Trucking Co.

The State Insurance Fund appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from December 1, 1981, which found it liable due to an improper cancellation of an employer's policy. The Board ruled the cancellation failed to comply with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54(5), which requires certified or registered mail with return receipt for notice of cancellation. The State Insurance Fund only provided a mailing manifest, lacking proof that a cancellation notice was actually sent, and offered no evidence of office practice to invoke a presumption of regularity. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that strict statutory conformity is necessary for policy cancellation, and awarded costs to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedStatutory CompliancePresumption of RegularityMailing ManifestEmployer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1989

Claim of Caldas v. 86 Alda Restaurant, Inc.

Claimant sustained injuries in his employment with Kilra, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the State Insurance Fund was not liable for benefits, affirming a WCLJ decision that the Fund had properly canceled its insurance policy. The State Insurance Fund had issued a policy to 86 Alda Restaurant, Inc., also covering Kilra as an additional insured, but only sent a cancellation notice for nonpayment to 86 Alda, not Kilra, despite filing separate notices with the Board. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding it insufficient for review. The court noted the Board failed to explain how cancellation was effective despite not strictly complying with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) requiring notice to the employer. Additionally, the Board failed to explain its departure from a prior inconsistent determination in a factually similar case. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy CancellationNotice to EmployerStatutory ComplianceAdministrative ReviewAppellate DivisionUninsured Employers FundJudicial PrecedentArbitrary and Capricious DecisionRemand
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1982

Claim of Sullivan v. Zerwick Food Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the effective date of an insurance policy cancellation. The claimant was injured while employed by Zerwick Food Corporation, which was insured by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. The Board found the policy cancellation effective April 10, 1978, having complied with subdivision 5 of section 54 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Uninsured Employers Fund appealed, citing the necessity of strict compliance with cancellation notice requirements. The court, after reviewing the notice and testimony, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the April 10, 1978 cancellation date.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUninsured Employers FundPolicy Effective DateWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionNew York Law
References
2
Case No. 533982
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry G. Lopez Mendez

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the effective cancellation of an employer's insurance policy. Claimant, Henry G. Lopez Mendez, was injured while working for TGA Construction, LLC. The core issue was whether Merchants Mutual Insurance Company had properly canceled the employer's policy due to non-payment before the accident, thereby making the employer uninsured. The Board, after full review, found the carrier failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements for cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier's proof of mailing was insufficient to establish a nexus with the cancellation notice.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNon-paymentStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPolicy LapseEmployer Liability
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 3,215 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