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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 535730
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Birro Jr.

Claimant Joseph Birro Jr., a roofer, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that ruled apportionment did not apply to his workers' compensation award. Birro had two established work-related injury claims, one in 2006 and another in 2015, while working for Wolkow-Braker Roofing Corp. The 2006 claim, with State Insurance Fund as the carrier, resulted in an 18.75% schedule loss of use for his left leg. The 2015 claim, with New Hampshire Insurance Company as the carrier, led to Birro being classified as permanently partially disabled with a 59% loss of wage-earning capacity after surgeries. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned liability between the two claims, but the Board rescinded this. After further medical opinion, the WCLJ apportioned 80% to 2006 and 20% to 2015. The Board then modified this, finding apportionment inapplicable and placing full liability with New Hampshire for the 2015 claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly rejected the sole medical opinion on apportionment because its conclusions were not supported by the record, considering Birro continued working after the 2006 injury and did not have surgery until after the 2015 incident.

Workers' Compensation AppealApportionmentMedical Opinion RejectionSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseWork-Related InjuryOccupational HazardRooferAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cerami v. Rochester City School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that found a claimant’s benefit claim untimely. The claim, filed in 1980, stemmed from a mental breakdown in 1966-1967 alleged to be work-related. The Board ruled the claimant was mentally competent to file within the two-year statutory period (WCL § 28), thus rejecting the tolling provision for mental incompetency (WCL § 115). The appellate court reviewed the medical testimony of Dr. Leve and Dr. Pisetzner, concluding the Board misconstrued their findings regarding the claimant’s capacity to comprehend his mental illness as work-related, despite general competence to file other claims. The court found overwhelming medical evidence indicated the claimant was mentally incapable of filing a claim for employment-induced mental illness and therefore deemed the claim timely under WCL § 115 due to continuing mental incapacity. Additionally, the court found substantial, virtually unanimous medical testimony confirming the work-related causation of the claimant’s mental illness, contrary to the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s determination. The decision was reversed, compensation benefits granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimTimeliness of ClaimMental IncompetencyTolling Statute of LimitationsParanoid SchizophreniaEmployment-Induced Psychological InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical Testimony InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversal of Board Decision
References
3
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. CV-23-2165
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Coyle \[Michael Coyle (dec'd)\]

In 2016, Michael Coyle established a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries and was later classified with a permanent partial disability. Following his death in January 2021, his minor son, Joseph Coyle, sought and was granted his father's unpaid wage-loss benefits, based on the precedent set by *Matter of Green v Dutchess County BOCES*. However, in October 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed *Green*, ruling against the posthumous transfer of unaccrued nonschedule awards. Consequently, the employer and its carrier requested to reopen the claim and suspend payments to Joseph Coyle. While a WCLJ initially reopened the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, denying the reopening and continuing benefit payments. The carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to seek administrative review of the initial WCLJ decision and finding no abuse of the Board's discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealPosthumous Wage-loss BenefitsClaim ReopeningAdministrative DiscretionFinality of WCLJ DecisionCourt of Appeals PrecedentGreen v Dutchess County BOCESPermanent Partial DisabilityUnaccrued BenefitsAbuse of Discretion Standard
References
13
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. CV-23-1908
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Miosotis Peralta

Miosotis Peralta, a court officer, suffered left shoulder and knee injuries in November 2021 during her duty. She filed a workers' compensation claim, and her employer continued to pay her salary. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim but initially denied her attorney's fee request in May 2023. The Workers' Compensation Board later modified this decision in September 2023, granting the attorney a fee of $10,422.27 as a lien on reimbursement. The employer's carrier appealed, contesting the counsel fee award based on interpretations of Workers' Compensation Law sections regarding increased compensation and employer reimbursement, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Counsel FeesEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationTemporary DisabilityLien on AwardsAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewJudicial PrecedentWorkplace InjuryCourt Officer
References
17
Case No. 535640
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Digbasanis

Anthony Digbasanis, who suffered work-related injuries in 2016 and was classified with a permanent partial disability, was initially deemed ineligible for workers' compensation benefits due to being unattached to the labor market. After reattaching in September 2019 and receiving reduced earning benefits, the carrier challenged his continued employment in 2021. Digbasanis claimed he stopped working in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and back pain, presenting a medical report supporting a temporary total disability. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge continued benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and rescinded benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) did not relieve Digbasanis of demonstrating ongoing labor market attachment, and substantial evidence supported the finding of voluntary withdrawal.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactMedical Report EvidenceAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w)Labor Market Attachment
References
11
Case No. CV-24-1104
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Foster

Claimant sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2015 and 2019 while working for the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. His workers' compensation claims were established, and physicians disagreed on whether his permanent impairments were amenable to a nonschedule classification or a schedule loss of use award. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity and classified him with a permanent partial disability, but denied wage loss benefits due to continued pre-injury wages. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, crediting the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Shanker Krishnamurthy, who argued that a nonschedule classification was more appropriate given claimant's continued ability to work full-time despite chronic loss of function in multiple extremities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseNonschedule ClassificationAppellate ReviewMedical Opinion ConflictWage-Earning CapacityThird Judicial DepartmentOrthopedic SurgeonSubstantial EvidenceClaimant Appeal
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 18,603 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