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

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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. ADJ9 088743
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

LEO ESTRELLA vs. MILWAUKEE BREWERS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leo Estrella's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that his cumulative injury claim against the Milwaukee Brewers and San Francisco Giants was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Board found that applicant knew or should have known of his right to file a claim more than one year prior to filing, precluding application of the five-year "new and further disability" statute. Applicant's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of knowledge was rejected, as the evidence indicated he was aware of the industrial causation of his injuries by 2009. One commissioner dissented, arguing the date of injury should be 2013 and that defendants failed to prove applicant's knowledge of his rights or the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityTollingDate of InjuryIndustrial CausationProfessional Baseball Player
References
14
Case No. ADJ7811907
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

KYLE PIKE vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Diego's petition for reconsideration, affirming an award of temporary disability and salary continuation benefits to Kyle Pike. Despite the benefits extending beyond five years from the injury date, the Board found applicant's temporary disability commenced within that period and was limited to 104 weeks. This decision aligns with a judicial interpretation that allows such awards when a timely petition to reopen is filed and benefits begin within the statutory five-year window. The dissenting opinion argued that Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) strictly prohibits temporary disability payments beyond five years from the injury date for injuries after January 1, 2008.

Labor Code section 4850temporary disability benefitsPetition to ReopenLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)five-year limitation104 weeksDeputy Sheriff Detentiondate of injurycontinuing jurisdictionnew and further disability
References
10
Case No. ADJ8825215
Regular
Dec 07, 2015

CARRIE SPELLINGS vs. PACIFIC PULMONARY SERVICES, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BROADSPIRE

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits. The applicant sustained a low back injury in 2010 and became temporarily totally disabled in 2014. The employer argued the indemnity rate should be based on pre-injury earnings and that the award exceeded the five-year statutory limit. The Board affirmed the award, finding temporary disability should be based on the applicant's actual earning capacity at the time of incapacity, not just the date of injury. Furthermore, the Board held that the five-year limit did not bar the award because the period of temporary disability commenced within that timeframe and the Board was exercising original jurisdiction.

Temporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationFindings and awardLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)Earning capacityDate of injuryDate of temporary total disabilityStipulated earningsIndemnity rateBodnar v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
6
Case No. ADJ1718605 (RIV 0018154)
Regular
May 20, 2011

SASON COHEN vs. MORTON'S STEAKHOUSE, ESIS, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, striking the award for additional temporary disability indemnity. The Board clarified that while jurisdiction exists to award temporary disability beyond five years from the injury date if a timely reopening petition is filed, this only applies to continuous disability that bridges the five-year mark. A new, non-continuous period of temporary disability arising more than five years after the injury, even with a timely filed petition, falls outside the Board's jurisdiction. The Board otherwise affirmed the original findings and award.

New and further disabilityStatute of limitationsTemporary total disabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified medical evaluatorSubstantial evidenceLabor Code section 5410Labor Code section 5803Labor Code section 5804
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Case No. ADJ1232764
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

ALEXANDRA CULLEN-WRIGHT vs. CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying jurisdiction to amend a prior award, arguing her RSD constitutes an insidious, progressive disease exempting it from the five-year statute of limitations. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate her RSD met the criteria for an insidious, progressive disease as defined in *General Foundry Service v. WCAB*. Furthermore, the Board noted the original decision did not reserve jurisdiction and no timely petition to reopen was filed to address this possibility. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to amend the award over five years post-injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5804cumulative injurycomplex regional pain syndromeRSDagreed medical examinersubstantial evidencepermanent and stationarysympathetic ganglion blockpetition to set aside
References
8
Case No. ADJ4463692 (STK 0134961) ADJ2984651 (STK 0142920)
Regular
Jan 13, 2010

WILLIAM MART vs. CALAVERAS COUNTY; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT, In Liquidation

Defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award of temporary disability benefits dating back to 2001. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and deferred the issues of temporary disability and attorney fees. This action was based on precedent holding that jurisdiction to award temporary disability beyond the five-year limit exists if a timely petition to reopen for new and further disability was filed and the disability arose within that five-year period. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and clarification regarding specific periods of temporary disability, considering Labor Code section 4656(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5803Labor Code Section 5804Sarabi v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Independent Medical Examiner (IME)
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,906 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