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

MacTaggart v. Gibbs & Cox. Inc.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute for over five years. The plaintiffs' primary excuse for the delay was their involvement in another litigation concerning similar issues. However, the court found that the issues in the two cases were not identical, and a significant period of a year and a half elapsed after the conclusion of the prior litigation without any further action on the present case. The court also considered the prejudice to the defendant, noting the difficulty and impracticability of recouping extra costs from clients related to contracts completed between February 1944 and December 1945. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action.

failure to prosecutedismissal of actionappellate reviewdiscretionary powerprejudice to defendantdelay in litigationstipulationsamended complaintnote of issueextra compensation
References
1
Case No. ADJ803055 (LAO 0817649)
Regular
Apr 23, 2010

ALESIA BUTLER vs. AZIMUTH TECHNOLOGIES/AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought to reopen her claim over seven years after her injury date. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior ruling that had rescinded a dismissal order. The WCAB found that the prior ruling was void for lack of jurisdiction as it was issued more than five years after the date of injury. Consequently, the WCAB dismissed the applicant's petition to reopen as untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationFinding and OrderPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5803Industrial InjuryFacilities TechnicianJurisdictionDue Process
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04009 [150 AD3d 1507]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Matter of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Claimant, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 accident and successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, naming "Five Stars Travel Bus Inc." as his employer. Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (Five Star) did not appear after being served, leading to a WCLJ finding it liable for awards and assessments. After subsequent awards and medical treatment authorizations, a settlement was approved in 2013. In May 2015, Five Star sought to reopen the claim and challenge the prior decisions and settlement, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application due to untimely submission of new material evidence and the non-reviewable nature of an approved waiver agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationBus AccidentUninsured EmployerClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionTimelinessContinuing JurisdictionDue Process
References
6
Case No. ADJ4637128 (GOL 0093729)
Regular
Jun 03, 2016

Vincent Ward vs. Morley Construction, National Union Fire Insurance Company

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior award granting temporary disability indemnity. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and ruled that the applicant was barred from claiming new and further temporary disability. This decision was based on Labor Code section 5410, which limits claims for "new and further" disability to five years from the date of injury. The Board clarified that a new award of temporary disability, especially after a prior award was terminated, constitutes a "further" award subject to this five-year limitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMorley ConstructionNational Union Fire Insurance CompanyTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code section 5410New and Further DisabilityReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardDate of InjuryStipulated Award
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore

The case involves a claimant's appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant, a museum director for five years, contended she resigned due to distress over allegations by a former Board of Trustees president and ongoing harassment from staff. However, the court found that issues with co-workers do not constitute good cause for leaving. An investigation had cleared the claimant of the allegations, and the Board was actively working to resolve the situation and retain her. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant left her job due to general dissatisfaction with work conditions.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseJob DissatisfactionWorkplace HarassmentBoard of TrusteesEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewBenefit DisqualificationClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falvey v. John F. Curry, Inc.

The claimant's decedent disappeared in February 1970. Five years later, in 1975, the Surrogate's Court of Kings County issued temporary letters of administration, presuming the date of death as February 11, 1970. The claimant then filed for death benefits. The employer and carrier appealed the award of benefits, contending there was no substantial evidence linking the death to employment and that the claim was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law section 28. The court found substantial evidence to support the finding that the death occurred in the course of employment. Additionally, the court ruled that under EPTL 2-1.7, the presumed date of death for an unexplained absence is five years after the disappearance, making the actual presumed death date February 11, 1975. Consequently, the claim filed on November 20, 1975, was deemed timely, and the board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumed DeathUnexplained AbsenceTime BarStatute of LimitationsEPTLCourse of Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pavilion Central School District v. Pavilion Faculty Ass'n

The Pavilion Central School District initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, which had directed the District to offer a probationary teacher an additional non-tenure accruing probationary appointment for the 1975-1976 school year. The teacher's services were terminated following legislative changes to the probationary period from five to three years. The arbitrator found the District violated the collective bargaining agreement by failing to provide timely notice of nonrenewal. The court ruled that the arbitrator exceeded his power in ordering reinstatement, reasoning that the grievant, being on maternity leave, suffered no damages from the lack of notice for the immediately subsequent school year, thus making the remedy irrational for that specific breach. However, the court remitted the case back to the arbitrator for a determination on whether the District violated the agreement's teacher evaluation and assistance provisions, suggesting that reinstatement might be a rational remedy if such a substantive breach is established.

Arbitration Award VacaturTeacher EmploymentProbationary TeacherCollective Bargaining AgreementEducation Law AmendmentsArbitrator PowersContract BreachMaternity Leave ImpactNotice RequirementsTeacher Evaluation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Millson v. Manfredo

This paternity proceeding challenges the constitutionality of Family Court Act § 517(a), which sets a five-year Statute of Limitations for mothers to commence such proceedings, arguing it violates equal protection. The respondent moved to dismiss because the petition was filed over five years after the child's birth. The court examined whether the statute impermissibly differentiates between male and female petitioners and between legitimate and illegitimate children. It concluded that the differing limitation periods for mothers and fathers are unjustified, as their rights are now identical. Furthermore, the court found that the five-year statute is not substantially related to preventing stale or fraudulent claims, especially when considering the longer periods for public welfare officials and advancements in blood testing. Consequently, the court determined the petitioner's claim, filed approximately 6.5 years post-birth, to be timely, and denied the respondent's motion to dismiss.

Paternity ProceedingsStatute of LimitationsEqual Protection ClauseConstitutional LawFamily LawGender DiscriminationIllegitimate Children RightsChild SupportJudicial ReviewFamily Court Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. Marriner

This opinion addresses a petitioner's request for a stay of arbitration across three matters: Marriner, Willig, and Rosenfield (which includes William Rosenfield, Sylvia Rosenfield, Rosenfield Trust, and William and Sylvia Rosenfield Joint Account). The key issues involve determining arbitrability, the applicability of the Amex six-year eligibility rule, and the arbitrability of punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The court ruled that it, not an arbitrator, must decide arbitrability in cases where no predispute arbitration agreement existed, such as Marriner, Willig, and the Rosenfield Trust. It further held that the Amex six-year eligibility rule does not apply to arbitrations filed with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) via the 'Amex Window,' thus denying the stay for Willig and Rosenfield Trust on this ground. However, the stay was granted for most of the Marriner matter based on the six-year rule, as it was filed with Amex. Finally, the court denied the stay concerning punitive damages and attorneys' fees, citing Supreme Court precedent that New York choice-of-law provisions do not preclude arbitrators from awarding such damages.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationArbitrabilityAmex Six Year Eligibility RulePunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesAmerican Arbitration AssociationAmerican Stock ExchangeChoice of LawPre-dispute Arbitration Agreement
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,343 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