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. 01C01-9606-CC-00236
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1998

State v. Pat Bondurant (Death Penalty)

Pat Bondurant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and arson. The jury found aggravating factors, including a prior violent felony conviction and that the murder involved torture or depravity of mind, leading to a death sentence. Bondurant appealed, raising numerous issues concerning jury selection, pre-trial publicity, counsel's effectiveness, sufficiency of evidence, marital privilege, prior criminal acts, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and the death sentence, finding no reversible error and concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings, and the sentence was not arbitrary or disproportionate.

MurderArsonFirst-degree murderCapital punishmentDeath penaltyPremeditationDeliberationCircumstantial evidenceJury selection irregularitiesIneffective assistance of counsel
References
176
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. 2019-01-0122
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Lowder, William v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.

William Lowder, a driver for XPO Logistics, developed hernias on January 2, 2019, after delivering solar panels. XPO Logistics initially denied the claim but later accepted it as part of an ongoing mediation process. Mr. Lowder then requested a 25% penalty for the late payment of temporary disability benefits, specifically temporary partial disability benefits. The Court assessed a $1,098.71 penalty against XPO Logistics under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-205(b)(3)(A) for failing to pay temporary disability benefits within twenty days of having knowledge of Mr. Lowder's disability, rejecting XPO's arguments that the penalty only applied to temporary total disability benefits or required a finding of 'bad faith'.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentTemporary Disability BenefitsLate PaymentHernia ClaimStatutory InterpretationBad FaithTennessee LawEmployer LiabilityDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eggleston v. Richardson

The petitioner, a child protective caseworker, sought annulment of her dismissal from civil service. Respondent adopted the hearing officer's findings of guilt on 17 charges. The court reviewed the findings for substantial evidence and the proportionality of the dismissal. It found 14 charges supported but dismissed charges related to unsupported specifications and hearsay evidence, including a serious charge of disclosing a complainant's identity. While the petitioner's misconduct, including abrasiveness and insubordination, was acknowledged, and dismissal wasn't disproportionate to the demonstrated offenses, the matter was remitted to the respondent for penalty reassessment as the administrative agency holds that responsibility.

Civil Service DismissalChild Protective CaseworkerArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewHearsay EvidencePenalty DisproportionateRemittal for PenaltyAdministrative Agency ResponsibilityMisconductInsubordination
References
6
Case No. 532221
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Manuel Ortiz

Manuel Ortiz appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Ortiz, injured in 2009 and again in 2013, failed to disclose his prior injuries on forms and to medical examiners concerning his 2013 claim. The Board imposed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including disqualification from future indemnity benefits, which Ortiz challenged as disproportionate. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of knowing material omissions was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty was not disproportionate given the repeated nature of the misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent misrepresentationDisclosure violationIndemnity benefits disqualificationAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceCredibility determinationPrior work-related injuryMaterial fact omissionDiscretionary penalty
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01867
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Restrepo v. Plaza Motors of Brooklyn Inc.

Claimant Javier Restrepo, a truck driver, established work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended when the carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose operating businesses while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a significant discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the violation more narrowly, based on the claimant's admitted operation of Jady Car Carrier Corporation, and imposed a mandatory penalty and a lesser discretionary penalty. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the Board abused its discretion by imposing a lesser penalty. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's chosen penalty was not "so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" and thus not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudWage Replacement BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCredibility DeterminationTruck DriverBusiness Operation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Mayo v. Rensselaer Polytech Institute

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to pay a penalty to a claimant under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 for failing to timely pay an award. The Special Fund appealed this decision, contending that the penalty provision applied only to employers or insurance carriers, not to them. The court, however, disagreed with the Special Fund's interpretation. Citing prior case law, the court held that the Special Fund, once liable for compensation benefits due to the passage of time, stands in the shoes of the carrier regarding the obligation to make timely payments. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision to impose the penalty, emphasizing the legislative policy for prompt compensation payments to injured workers.

Workers' CompensationPenaltyTimely PaymentStatutory InterpretationSpecial FundReopened CasesInsurance CarrierAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionLegislative Intent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,327 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