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

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1999

McLaughlin v. North Colonie Central School District

Petitioner, an employee injured in July 1998 while working on a construction project owned by the respondent, moved in March 1999 to serve a late notice of claim, significantly past the 90-day statutory period. The Supreme Court denied this application. On appeal, the petitioner argued that his delay should be excused due to his unawareness of the severity of his injuries and the respondent's timely knowledge of the incident. However, the Appellate Division found no supporting affidavit from the petitioner or medical evidence, thus dismissing the excuse offered by counsel. The court also rejected the argument that the general contractor's knowledge could be imputed to the respondent, citing a lack of evidence of actual timely knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the motion was affirmed, as there was no viable excuse for the delay or proof of the respondent's timely actual knowledge.

Late notice of claimmunicipal liabilityconstruction site accidentactual knowledgeimputed knowledgejudicial discretionworkers' compensation claimpersonal injuryappealprocedural law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1988

Billsborrow v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.

This opinion addresses motions for summary judgment by Dow Chemical, U.S.A., and Pride Solvent Chemical Company, Inc., in a negligence and strict products liability action. Plaintiff Nancy Ann Billsborrow, as administratrix, sued after her husband, Christopher Billsborrow, died from exposure to Neu-Tri solvent. Defendants argued they fulfilled their duty to warn through the "responsible intermediary" and "knowledgeable user" doctrines. The court declined to extend the responsible intermediary doctrine to bulk chemical sales in this context, citing significant distinctions from pharmaceutical cases. Furthermore, it found questions of fact regarding the adequacy of warnings and Pride's knowledge. The court also rejected the knowledgeable user doctrine's application, stating it does not apply to unskilled workers and an employer's knowledge cannot be imputed to an employee. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were denied.

products liabilitynegligencesummary judgmentduty to warnresponsible intermediary doctrineknowledgeable user doctrinebulk chemical salestrichloroethylene exposurefatal injurychemical hazards
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Claim of Kass v. Club Mart of America, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board directed the Special Disability Fund to pay benefits for a claimant's back and knee injury, acknowledging preexisting hypertension and diabetes. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). A legislative amendment in July 1987 eliminated the employer's knowledge requirement for reimbursement from the Fund, and the Board subsequently resolved that this amendment applied to all open cases where the knowledge issue was not finally determined by that date. The Fund appealed the Board's decision, contending the amendment should not apply retroactively to claims filed before its effective date, thus requiring proof of employer knowledge. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established law that amended statutes appropriately apply to pending proceedings without constitutional issues, given the employer knowledge issue was still unresolved.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d)Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting Physical ImpairmentEmployer Knowledge RequirementStatutory Amendment ApplicationRetroactive Application of LawPending ProceedingsAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ8739571
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MARVIN BENARD vs. SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S. FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined the defendant failed to meet its burden of proving the applicant had actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights more than one year before filing his claim. Crucially, the defendant did not provide notice of these rights, and the applicant's knowledge of his injury's industrial cause did not equate to knowledge of his rights to benefits. Therefore, the case was returned for further proceedings.

Cumulative traumaStatute of limitationsDate of injuryKnowledge of rightsTollingAffirmative defenseReconsiderationBurden of proofProfessional athleteNotice of rights
References
10
Case No. ADJ10425864, ADJ7159539
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

GHASSAN MOSRIE vs. CHURCH OF THE CHIMES, GUIDEONE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant's 2008 injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Board determined that imputed knowledge from the applicant's attorney does not constitute actual knowledge for tolling purposes. The employer's failure to provide statutory notice of rights, coupled with the applicant's lack of actual knowledge, prejudiced the applicant. Therefore, the Board found the applicant's claim for the November 8, 2008 injury is not barred by the statute of limitations, deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsTollingClaim FormNotice of Potential EligibilityWaiverMandatory Settlement ConferenceAffirmative DefenseActual Knowledge
References
6
Case No. ADJ6937263
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

PAUL ESCUDERO vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cisco Systems' petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Cisco failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Specifically, the employer did not provide legally required notices, and the applicant's vague consultation with a civil attorney did not constitute sufficient actual knowledge to start the statute of limitations. The Board also noted that actual knowledge cannot be imputed solely by an employee's representation by counsel.

Statute of limitationsTollingActual knowledgeWorkers' compensation rightsEmployer noticeCivil attorneyImputed knowledgePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

184 West 10th Street Corp. v. Marvits

Judge McCooe's dissenting opinion argues that the tenant failed to prove the landlord had actual knowledge of her openly and notoriously harbored cats, a prerequisite for waiving a 'no pet' lease provision under Administrative Code of City of New York § 27-2009.1 (b). The dissent criticizes the majority for shifting the burden of proof, mischaracterizing an independent contractor as an agent, and not strictly applying the 'actual knowledge' requirement as established in Seward Park Hous. Corp. v Cohen. McCooe asserts that the tenant's evidence of knowledge was speculative, as her cats usually hid, and workers were not present long-term. Ultimately, the dissenting judge concludes that the trial court's determination that the landlord did not waive its right to enforce the no-pet provision should be affirmed.

Pet PolicyLease WaiverOpen and NotoriousActual KnowledgeIndependent ContractorAgency LawBurden of ProofAdministrative CodeNew York LawLandlord-Tenant Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sanders v. Langaster Central School System

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed March 1, 1979, which discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15(8). The claimant's decedent, a school grounds keeper for Lancaster Central School System, suffered a fatal myocardial infarction in 1975. The employer's carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, alleging the decedent had a prior physical impairment of coronary artery disease. The core issue on appeal was whether the employer had knowledge of this prior impairment. Testimony from the school superintendent and other witnesses indicated no such knowledge or perception of permanency. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the employer lacked the requisite knowledge.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer KnowledgePrior ImpairmentMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceBoard DecisionAppellate AffirmationReimbursement ClaimCoronary Artery Disease
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Griffin v. John Civetta & Sons

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision discharging the Special Disability Fund from liability. The claimant sustained two back injuries, one prior to employment in September 1973 and a compensable one in October 1974 while working for the employer. Subsequently, the claimant's disability was apportioned 50% to each accident. The central issue was whether the employer had the requisite knowledge of the claimant's pre-existing permanent impairment, a condition for the Special Disability Fund's liability under Workers’ Compensation Law section 15 (subd 8, par [d]). The Board discredited evidence provided by the appellants, including a statement prepared by the employer's carrier and the job superintendent's vague testimony, finding insufficient proof of employer knowledge. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the employer lacked the necessary knowledge.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundPre-existing ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeDisability ApportionmentAppellate ReviewCredibility of EvidenceWorkers’ Compensation LawBoard Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 530 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