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

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anowai v. Holiday Inn

Claimant, a security officer, was struck on the head by falling facade debris from an adjacent building shortly after completing his shift at a Manhattan hotel. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, deeming it within the area of egress. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the accident did not occur as an incident or risk of employment because it happened on a public street, in front of a separate building, and involved a hazard outside the employer's control. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its factual findings regarding the nexus between the accident and the claimant's employment. The court reiterated that while risks near the employment situs can merge with employment risks, the Board's discretionary determination of such risks should be respected.

Accidental InjuryScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleEgress and IngressStreet RiskPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlFactual FindingsAppellate ReviewSecurity Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Moog, Inc.

Claimant was terminated from employment due to excessive absenteeism. He subsequently filed a complaint alleging discriminatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241, asserting he was fired for attempting to file a disability benefits claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the termination was for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, which was affirmed on appeal. The court emphasized that the burden of proving retaliation rests with the claimant, requiring a causal nexus between protected activity and detrimental employer conduct, which was not established in this case, and that a termination due to lengthy absence, absent retaliatory intent, does not constitute discrimination.

DiscriminationRetaliationExcessive AbsenteeismDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofCausal NexusJob TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romano v. Franklin General Hospital

A claimant, injured in an auto accident in her employer's parking lot, received treatment from an employer-affiliated orthopedist for cervical myositis. A C-4 medical report was filed, and the employer billed its carrier for physical therapy. The carrier controverted the claim, citing a failure to timely file under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the employer had timely notice and that the medical services provided constituted an advance payment of compensation, thus waiving the § 28 requirement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the medical care was indeed an advance payment, and the employer was aware the injury was work-related, thereby supporting the waiver of the timely filing requirement.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Advance Payment of CompensationWaiver of FilingTimely NoticeMedical Services as CompensationC-4 Medical ReportWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCarrier Controversion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2004

Claim of Frank v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a causal relationship between a decedent's death and his employment. The employer engaged in prolonged retaliatory and harassing conduct, including unjustifiably withholding differential pay, threatening to revoke medical benefits, refusing to reimburse pharmacy expenses, denying vacation leave, and filing a false claim of absence without leave. This behavior, alongside repeated failures to substantiate claims regarding benefit overpayments, led to prolonged hearings. Following one such hearing, the decedent suffered a fatal myocardial infarction. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board subsequently found a causal connection between the employer's conduct and the decedent's death. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the death resulted from the employer's "prolonged pattern of intimidation, deceit, and unlawful coercion, the wrongful withholding of benefits to which decedent was entitled, and generally disgraceful conduct towards the decedent." The employer's claims regarding witness preclusion were dismissed as not properly before the court.

Workers' CompensationCausationEmployer RetaliationStress-Related DeathMyocardial InfarctionBenefits WithholdingAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceProcedural IssuesUnjustified Conduct
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

Claimant filed a disability benefits claim for a non-work-related back condition. After an extended absence of 40 days, her employment was terminated by the employer, who cited her doctor's inability to provide a definitive return-to-work date. Claimant subsequently filed a discrimination complaint, alleging her discharge violated Workers' Compensation Law sections 120 and 241, which prohibit employer retaliation for claiming benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the employer violated the applicable law by terminating her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's stated reason for termination was insufficient to distinguish it from a prohibited discriminatory discharge, and that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

DiscriminationRetaliationDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawTermination of EmploymentBack ConditionAbsence from WorkSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 16,331 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