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
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ewing v. YMCA

Claimant, a kitchen worker, sustained a left leg injury in September 1989, leading to a schedule loss of use award in November 2001. After the last compensation payment, the claimant requested to reopen her case in October 2004, which was denied as it lacked grounds for reopening. A subsequent request in June 2005, supported by a March 2005 medical report indicating a worsened condition, led the Workers' Compensation Board to reopen the case and transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund appealed, challenging the Board's determination that the 2004 letter did not constitute a proper reopening application. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported that the 2004 letter lacked sufficient grounds for reopening, thus upholding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund based on the June 2005 request.

Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardSpecial FundMedical ReportLiability TransferAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewWorsened Condition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Korthals v. Valu Home Centers, Inc.

Claimant sustained back injuries in 2003 and 2009 while employed by Valu Home Centers, Inc. and Spectrum Human Services, respectively. A 2009 independent medical examination apportioned liability for her condition across both injuries and prior motor vehicle accidents. After claimant's 2011 back surgery, Spectrum's carrier requested further action, prompting Valu's carrier to seek a liability transfer for the 2003 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this transfer, ruling no prior request to reopen the 2003 claim existed. The Special Fund appealed, contending the 2009 medical report served as an application to reopen. The court reversed the Board's decision, determining that the medical report submitted in 2009 indeed constituted a timely application to reopen the 2003 claim, thereby preventing liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ApportionmentClaim ReopeningIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewBack InjuryPrior InjurySeven-Year Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. ADJ4245398 (GOL 0101151)
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

HEIDI KIRKWOOD vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was procedural and not a final determination. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order to reopen discovery, and returned the case for a decision based on the existing record. This action was taken because the discovery closure date had passed, no party requested further development of the record, and reopening would cause undue delay. The Board admonished the defendant for improperly titling their petition as one for reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrderVacated SubmissionPsychiatric PQMEReevaluationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
10
Case No. ADJ4069151 (SFO 0480834) ADJ2187655 (SFO 0489284)
Regular
Jan 13, 2014

NICOLE PEDROIA vs. CONVENANT AVIATION SECURITY, CHARTIS CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to take the cases off calendar. The WCJ had allowed record development on applicant's amended claims, but discovery had previously closed at the mandatory settlement conference. The Board found no good cause to reopen discovery for new injury claims filed just days before trial, over nine years after the initial injury. The matters are returned to the trial level for setting, with the WCJ to determine if reopened record development is permissible.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderAmended ApplicationsDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue DiligenceLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Stipulated InjuriesReopening DiscoveryWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ8809588
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

**SHARON SNOW,** vs. **WEST COAST COSMETIC MEDICAL; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,**

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the trial judge ordered the case to trial and closed discovery. The defendant argues insufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, citing the applicant's cancellation of a deposition due to a perceived discrimination claim that was not formally filed. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding good cause to reopen discovery. The matter is returned to the trial level for a priority conference to ensure complete discovery before proceeding to trial.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDeposition CancellationLabor Code section 132aDiscovery CompletionIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryDigestive System InjuryExilis TechnicianMedical Report
References
0
Case No. 58107472
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Klouse v. City of Albany

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained multiple compensable back injuries, leading to the reopening of two 1981 cases. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially held the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, but the Board reversed, finding that a November 1987 medical report by Dr. Dominic Belmonte constituted a timely request to reopen, thus discharging the Special Fund. Reliance Insurance Company, the carrier for the 1981 cases, sought full Board review, citing lack of notice and the report's insufficiency, but the Board denied it, affirming its prior decision that the report was adequate. The employer and Reliance appealed these Board decisions to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the finding that an application to reopen was made within seven years.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesApportionment of DisabilityMedical ReportSeven-Year RuleNotice RequirementsBack InjuryInsurance Carrier LiabilityBoard ReviewAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giglio v. Fehlhaber Horn Corp.

The claimant, a 57-year-old construction worker, suffered two compensable back injuries in 1969 and 1974, leading to a finding of total permanent disability and case closure in 1977. Later, medical examinations by Drs. Foster and Mincy prompted an apportionment change but reaffirmed permanent total disability. In 1981, the claimant applied to reopen his cases based on Dr. Teresi's report suggesting permanent partial disability, which would offer financial advantages given his retirement and Social Security benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the reopening application, asserting no change in physical condition and that the prior disability determination was conclusive as it was not appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's refusal to reopen was not arbitrary or capricious, despite its misapplication of the 'law of the case' doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDisability ClassificationCase ReopeningPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceJudicial ReviewBoard DiscretionAppellate ProcedureFinancial Advantage
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,789 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