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. ADJ8717299
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

JOSEPH LOBB vs. JEFFREY D. HADDEN, JEFFREY D. HADDEN AND DOROTHY M. HADDEN DBA NAT PEST CONTROL AND FIREWOOK AKA NPC, DOROTHY M. HADDEN, NATURAL PEST CONTROLS FIREWOOD

This case involves an employer's objection, treated as a petition for reconsideration, to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded benefits to an employee. The employers claim they never received notice of the original WCJ's decision or subsequent Board actions, including the September 2, 2016 decision. The WCAB found that the employers were indeed deprived of due process due to improper service. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow the employers to file an answer and ensure a just decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessImproper NoticeOfficial Address RecordProof of ServiceDeclaration of ServiceToll StatuteActual NoticeWCJ DecisionAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ749878 (ANA 0384761)
Regular
Dec 15, 2010

ENRIQUE GUTIERREZ vs. FRANCISCO ORDONEZ, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) sought reconsideration of an award based on stipulated facts concerning an industrial injury to applicant. The Board granted reconsideration because there was no proof that the alleged uninsured employer was properly served with notice of the stipulations and the WCJ's intention to issue an award. The employer was not afforded the statutorily required time to object before the award was issued. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case for further proceedings, emphasizing proper service and objection periods.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations With Request For AwardLabor Code section 3715(e)Notice of Intention to Approve StipulationsProof of ServiceAlleged Uninsured EmployerRescind AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Seatrain Lines, Inc., operating as a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11, objected to a proof of claim filed by the BSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund. The Pension Fund sought $323,163.00 in withdrawal liability, asserting Seatrain was an 'employer' under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 due to its prior engagement of stevedores for longshoremen services. Seatrain argued it was not an employer because the longshoremen were hired, paid, and controlled by independent stevedores, not Seatrain directly. The court examined common law indicia of employment and congressional intent behind the Multiemployer Act. It concluded that Seatrain was neither a common law employer nor an employer under the Multiemployer Act, and thus had no withdrawal liability. The Pension Fund's claim was consequently ordered expunged.

BankruptcyMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorLongshoremenERISAChapter 11Proof of ClaimClaim Objection
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Good v. Town of Brutus

A claimant, employed as a court clerk since 2002, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. She was awarded a 25% schedule loss of use of the left hand. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier sought apportionment of liability with her two most recent prior employers under Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding no medical evidence of the condition arising from prior employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, stating that despite the claimant experiencing symptoms previously and an independent medical examiner suggesting apportionment, there was no objective medical proof that she contracted the condition while working for a previous employer. The court emphasized that the focus for apportionment is whether the claimant contracted the occupational disease during that specific employment.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 44Prior EmployersMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminerSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Garcia v. Cantor

Claimant Giovani Garcia sustained a work-related injury after being bitten by a snake while picking up leaves for employer Stuart Cantor. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, found the employer uninsured, and assessed a penalty. The employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to provide a complete response to question 15 on the RB-89 form, specifically by omitting the date of objection. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board has discretion to deny review for non-compliance with its procedural rules, and the employer's response was patently defective for lacking the required date.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewBoard DiscretionApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Procedural RulesUninsured EmployerPenalty AssessmentWork-Related InjurySnake Bite
References
14
Case No. 532415
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Giovani Garcia

Claimant, a laborer, was bitten by a snake while working for an uninsured employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a work-related injury to claimant's left hand and left wrist, authorized medical treatment, and assessed a penalty against the employer for being uninsured. The employer appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to provide a complete response to a required question on the application form (RB-89). Specifically, the employer's response did not provide the date on which an objection or exception was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board has the discretion to deny review when a party, represented by counsel, fails to comply with its regulations regarding application requirements.

Workers' CompensationUninsured EmployerAdministrative ReviewBoard RegulationsForm RB-89Objection DateAppellate DivisionCompliancePenalty AssessmentWork-Related Injury
References
14
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. 530744
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Centeno v. Academy Group Props., LLC

Claimant Marvin Centeno was injured in 2015 while working on renovations in Connecticut and filed for workers' compensation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found him an employee of uninsured employers Academy Group Properties, LLC and Yehuda Amar, holding them jointly and severally liable. The employers' initial application for Board review was denied due to noncompliance with procedural regulations (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b]). Following a WCLJ decision on the claimant's schedule loss of use (SLU), the employers again sought Board review, challenging the employment relationship and alleging lack of notice for the SLU hearing. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this second application, citing continued noncompliance with the regulatory requirements for specifying issues and grounds for appeal and objections made. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying review based on the incompleteness of the application.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionBoard Review ApplicationProcedural NoncomplianceEmployment Relationship DisputeUninsured EmployerSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Due Process ViolationHearing NoticeAdministrative Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,472 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