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

Berner v. Town of Huntington

The court addressed the defendant's motion to reargue a previously denied summary judgment motion. The original denial stemmed from the court's finding that an exception to the prior written notice requirement for municipalities applied, as the defendant, Town of Huntington, had actual knowledge of a defective curb, had inspected it, and had slated it for repair. The defendant contended that recent Court of Appeals precedent, particularly Amabile v City of Buffalo, abrogated this 'actual notice and inspection' exception. However, the court distinguished Amabile by noting it concerned constructive notice and reaffirmed the vitality of the narrow exception for actual notice coupled with inspection. The court emphasized that the policy behind written notice laws is not to shield municipalities from liability for known and unaddressed defects, especially when a property owner has vigilantly reported the issue. Consequently, the court granted reargument but upheld its initial decision, allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed.

Prior Written NoticeMunicipal LiabilityActual Notice ExceptionSummary JudgmentReargument MotionCurb DefectHighway LawTown LawGeneral Municipal LawSpecial Duty
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Johnson v. T.L. Cannon Management

Claimant, a broiler cook, allegedly sustained a work-related injury in February 2012 but delayed applying for workers' compensation benefits until April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, citing claimant's failure to provide timely notice to the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Court upheld the Board's determination, finding no grounds to overturn it. The Court emphasized the requirement for timely written notice of injury within 30 days, noting that while exceptions exist, excusing such failures remains within the Board's discretion, and the 14-month delay, coupled with the supervisor's lack of recall regarding an injury report, supported the Board's findings.

Workers’ CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident ReportingCredibility DeterminationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimAdministrative AppealWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. New York State & Local Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent Comptroller's denial of his application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial was predicated on the petitioner's failure to furnish the written notice stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The petitioner's reliance on an exception for workers' compensation notice, even with oral notice and the employer's actual knowledge, was deemed insufficient. The court reaffirmed that a Workers’ Compensation Board's decision to excuse late notice does not bind the Comptroller for disability retirement purposes. Consequently, as no applicable statutory exceptions were met, the Comptroller's determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPerformance of DutyNotice RequirementsWorkers' Compensation LawRetirement and Social Security LawComptroller DeterminationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawTimely NoticeStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. ADJ7257085
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

RAMON MACIAS vs. SOUTHWIRE CORPORATION, OLD REPUBLIC RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns an applicant claiming back, hip, and ankle injury from May 1, 2009, who reported it during an exit interview on March 22, 2010, after receiving notice of termination. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the trial judge's findings based on parties' stipulations that the injury was reported post-termination without notice to the employer beforehand. The Board found that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) bars claims filed after notice of termination unless specific exceptions apply, and the applicant's reported injury date predates termination notice. The issue of potential exceptions under section 3600(a)(10) remains reserved for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimExit interviewActual notice of terminationStipulationsWCABReconsideration deniedPreponderance of evidenceExceptions to denialCompensable injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. DiNapoli

The case concerns a petitioner seeking to excuse the notice requirement for a disability retirement claim. The petitioner argued that either a workers' compensation claim or a 'good cause' exception should apply. The court found that the workers' compensation claim was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the Workers’ Compensation Board’s subsequent decision to excuse its untimeliness was not binding on the respondent. Regarding the good cause exception, the petitioner failed to notify the employer of the injury or disability within 30 days of the occurrence, as required by regulation, instead waiting a year. The court upheld the respondent's interpretation that the notice event is the occurrence of the disability, not its diagnosis. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the respondent’s denial of the good cause exception, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementGood Cause ExceptionTimelinessEmployer NotificationOccupational DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRetirement and Social Security Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dormeyer v. McCall

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial stemmed from the petitioner's failure to provide the mandatory written notice under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The court found that the petitioner did not preserve the 'good cause' exception issue for review as it was not raised during the administrative hearing. Furthermore, the court upheld the respondent's determination that oral notice to the employer was insufficient to satisfy the Workers’ Compensation Law exception. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty BenefitsNotice RequirementsAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssuesGood CauseWorkers' Compensation ExceptionOral NoticeDetermination Confirmation
References
2
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,755 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