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 McHeffey v. International Talc Co.

A claimant with pneumoconiosis, stemming from two decades of talc dust exposure with his former employer, was denied disability benefits by the board. The board cited that his disability was employment-related and his workers' compensation claim was controverted on multiple grounds, not solely causation. The court affirmed the board's decision regarding the claimant's disqualification from benefits due to the disability's causal link to employment. However, it clarified that under Workmen's Compensation Law § 206(2), disability benefits are payable even when a workers' compensation claim is controverted on additional grounds besides causation, emphasizing the statute's purpose to alleviate economic hardship during litigation of causation.

PneumoconiosisOccupational DiseaseDisability BenefitsCausal RelationStatutory InterpretationEconomic HardshipUnemployment BenefitsLien RightsBoard Decision AppealEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stevenson v. Yellow Roadway Corp.

A tractor trailer operator employed by Yellow Roadway Corporation crashed and suffered a massive stroke, dying two days later. His widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, which the employer attempted to controvert. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the employer failed to timely controvert the claim, thereby barring their defenses regarding causation. Relying on the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), the Board established a causally related death. The employer appealed, challenging the application of the presumption and the finding of a causally related death. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding that the employer was precluded from raising defenses due to the untimely filing of the notice of controversy.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationPresumption of CompensabilityWorkers’ Compensation Law § 21Workers’ Compensation Law § 25Untimely ControversionStrokeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munson v. Seneca County

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding an employer’s obligation to pay interest on medical bills in a controverted claim. The self-insured employer controverted the claimant’s injury but paid hospital bills after compensability was established. The hospital, as medical provider, sought interest on bills submitted prior to the compensability finding, arguing the employer failed to timely object to the bill amounts. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the request for interest, concluding the employer was not obligated to pay until compensability was determined. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding its interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-g and its regulations to have a rational basis, as the statute defers payment obligations until the employer’s liability is finally determined.

Workers' CompensationMedical BillsInterest PaymentEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTimely ObjectionCompensabilityBoard DecisionAppealNew York Law
References
0
Case No. CV-23-0409
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jennel Collins

Claimant Jennel Collins appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision that found the employer, New York City Transit Authority, timely filed a notice of controversy. Collins sustained injuries at work and filed a claim for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the employer failed to timely controvert, waiving defenses and establishing the claim. However, the WCB modified this, ruling that the 25-day period for controverting under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) was not triggered because the case was not indexed, making the employer's subsequent controversion timely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings because the Board failed to address the claimant's arguments regarding the binding nature of the employer's initial injury reports indicating acceptance of liability, and if subsequent actions violated Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (a) or 12 NYCRR 300.37 (c).

Workers' CompensationNotice of ControversyTimelinessWaiver of DefensesBoard IndexingPrima Facie Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. SBR 0326533
Regular
Sep 10, 2007

RODNEY HORTON vs. US NURSING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous award, finding that the defendant's evidence regarding the applicant's intoxication, including expert testimony and a doctor's report, should not have been excluded. The exclusion was based on discovery closure rules which the Board determined were not properly applied given subsequent reopenings and disclosures. The case is returned to the trial level for admission of the controverted evidence and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryDue ProcessIndustrial InjuryNurseIntoxicationExpert Witness
References
1
Case No. ADJ1038622
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

PAUL SOTEROPOULOS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant, a firefighter, did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment for his testicular cancer. The Board found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion on the latency period provided substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant's hernia was a complication of non-industrial cancer treatment, thus controverting the presumption of compensability for hernias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPaul SoterepoulosLos Angeles County Fire DepartmentReconsiderationFirefighterRight Testicular CancerHerniaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of CompensabilityLatency Period
References
2
Case No. ADJ9065210
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

WILLIAM JOHNS vs. BEN F. SMITH, AIG, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Defendant Zurich North America sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding applicant benefits for injuries sustained as a carpenter. Zurich contested the date of injury, arguing it predated their coverage and denied due process by deferring this issue. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the WCJ failed to issue findings on all controverted issues, specifically the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineRight HipBilateral KneesLower ExtremitiesCarpenter
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2009

Claim of Quagliata v. Starbucks Coffee

The claimant, a coffee shop manager, applied for workers' compensation benefits alleging a repetitive occupational injury. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim but submitted an untimely prehearing conference statement. As a result, the WCLJ found that the employer waived all defenses and established the occupational injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the employer's contention that the waiver regulation conflicted with Workers' Compensation Law § 25 and upholding the sufficiency of the record.

Occupational InjuryRepetitive Strain InjuryWaiver of DefensesPrehearing Conference StatementUntimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureBoard RegulationsStatutory InterpretationDue Process Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bellantoni v. City of New York School Food and Nutrition Services

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2011, alleging a work-related shoulder injury in 2009. The employer controverted the claim but failed to file a timely prehearing conference statement or demonstrate good cause for delay, leading the Workers' Compensation Board to rule that the employer waived its defenses. The employer appealed this interlocutory decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, holding that an interlocutory decision that does not dispose of all substantive issues is not appealable, and the employer could appeal from the Board's final decision if necessary.

Workers' Compensation AppealInterlocutory DecisionWaiver of DefenseTimely Notice of InjuryPrehearing Conference StatementAppellate JurisdictionProcedural Dismissal
References
8
Case No. ADJ9028464
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

RAMIRO HERNANDEZ vs. MERCURY PLASTICS, INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding applicant Ramiro Hernandez sustained a mid-back injury AOE/COE. The WCAB determined the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) because the injury claim was filed after notice of termination. Applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptions to this rule, particularly by a preponderance of the evidence, due to inconsistent and controverted testimony regarding the injury's occurrence and reporting. Consequently, the WCAB found the applicant not credible and his claim barred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMercury PlasticsInc.Old Republic InsuranceRamiro HernandezInjury AOE/COELabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimReconsiderationWCJ decision rescinded
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 169 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