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. 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. 535717
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Denis Campos

The Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department affirmed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a claim filed by Denis Campos. Claimant Campos, a construction worker, sought benefits after an accident. The Board had ruled that American Zurich Insurance Company was the liable workers' compensation carrier due to an improperly canceled policy, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). American Zurich's appeal, including a request for reconsideration and full Board review, was denied because they failed to present crucial evidence to the Workers' Compensation Law Judge despite prior directives. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider newly submitted evidence on administrative appeal and affirmed the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Carrier LiabilityPolicy CancellationAdministrative ReviewAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesJudicial DiscretionConstruction AccidentLadder FallThird Judicial Department
References
5
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bal v. Sidewalk of New York Productions, Inc.

Claimant filed a discrimination claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employer contended the termination was due to unsatisfactory performance prior to the reported injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, questioning the claimant's testimony and a tape recording. A Board panel affirmed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied full Board review. The appellate court affirmed the Board's discretionary denial, finding no abuse of discretion as the claimant had ample opportunity to litigate the credibility issue and further review was unwarranted.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimCredibility IssueDiscretionary ReviewFull Board ReviewPro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUnsatisfactory Job Performance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
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. 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. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. 534171, 534534
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of James Banish

James Banish, a patrol officer, appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, his claim for jaw and head injuries resulting from an on-duty assault was established, but he later sought to amend it to include a causally-related left shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, found no causal relationship for the shoulder injury and denied the claim; subsequently, his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed both decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the shoulder injury was not causally related to his employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration, clarifying that Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207-c are distinct statutory schemes, and a prior award under one does not dictate the other.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cWorkers' Compensation LawSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewPatrol Officer
References
17
Case No. 534849
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Perry

Claimant Robert Perry, a correction officer, appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, Perry filed a claim in January 2017 for left hand and wrist injuries, which was established. He later sought to amend his claim in 2020 to include a causally-related left elbow injury, diagnosed in May 2020 and surgically repaired in February 2021. The Board, reversing a WCLJ decision, found the claim for the elbow injury time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, as it was filed more than two years after the original accident. The Board also denied Perry's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the claim for the left elbow injury was indeed time-barred and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, having properly weighed the evidence including conflicting medical records and claimant's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Statute of LimitationsTimely FilingClaim AmendmentLeft Elbow InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewFactual IssueSubstantial Evidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 26,536 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