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
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. ADJ6525207
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

MICHAEL GRAY vs. WATSON ROOFING, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC.

This case concerns a clerical error in a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision where the applicant's injury and temporary disability dates were mistakenly listed as 2009 instead of 2008. The Board issues an order correcting these specific dates nunc pro tunc across multiple pages of the prior opinion. This ensures the record accurately reflects the true year of the applicant's injury and the commencement of his temporary disability benefits. The correction is effective as of the original decision date.

Nunc pro tuncClerical errorReconsiderationTemporary disabilityDate of injuryAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWatson RoofingNational Union Fire Insurance CompanyAIG Domestic Claims
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rifenburgh v. James

Petitioner was injured in an automobile accident while en route to an employer-directed physical examination and subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits. He also commenced a third-party action, which was settled without the workers' compensation carrier's consent or timely judicial approval. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge closed the case after petitioner failed to obtain judicial approval. Petitioner later attempted to reopen the claim by seeking nunc pro tunc judicial approval, but Supreme Court denied the application due to undue delay. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner's own neglect, thereby barring future workers' compensation benefits.

Automobile AccidentThird-Party ActionSettlement without ConsentJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncUndue DelayPetitioner NeglectWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCourse of EmploymentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banks v. National Union Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The original proceeding, overseen by Justice Dillon, was initiated pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to retroactively approve a settlement of an action. The Supreme Court had granted the petition, allowing the petitioner's settlement with a third party nunc pro tunc. The appellate court affirmed this order, concluding that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in its approval. Justices Altman, Goldstein, Luciano, and H. Miller concurred with the decision.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro TuncAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDutchess CountySupreme Court (NY)Third-Party SettlementOrder AffirmedConcurring Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

Paneto v. RMSCO, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied a petition to approve a workers' compensation claim settlement nunc pro tunc. The petitioner failed to obtain the workers' compensation carrier's consent or judicial approval within the statutory three-month period, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). Although late approval may be granted if the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault and the carrier was not prejudiced, the petitioner failed to establish lack of fault for a delay exceeding two years. Furthermore, the petitioner did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the $7,000 settlement amount derived from a $50,000 insurance policy. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the denial of the application, concluding that the motion court's determination was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

Workers’ Compensation LawSettlement AgreementNunc Pro Tunc OrderThird-Party ClaimCarrier ConsentJudicial DiscretionTimelinessAppellate DivisionAffirmationNeglect
References
3
Case No. ADJ6659926, ADJ6659223
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

MICHELLE JIMENEZ vs. DENCO SALES COMPANY, ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a nunc pro tunc order by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to correct a clerical error in a prior January 6, 2012 decision. The error was the inclusion of "days" alongside "weeks" when specifying the duration of additional temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB clarified that the award was for up to 35 weeks of temporary disability, not weeks and days. While defendants raised issues about their respective liabilities and payments, the WCAB confirmed that the January 6, 2012 decision only addressed the total amount of temporary disability owed to the applicant and did not resolve inter-defendant contribution claims.

Nunc Pro Tunc OrderClerical ErrorTemporary Disability IndemnityFindings and AwardReconsiderationContributionReimbursementCumulative Trauma InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill v. Moultrie

A New York City police officer, injured in an auto accident, settled a third-party action. To preserve his workers' compensation rights, he sought a nunc pro tunc compromise order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which was granted on January 11, 1990. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, noting that the delay in obtaining the order was not due to the petitioner's fault and did not prejudice the city, especially since the third-party settlement was for the full policy limit. The court also found satisfactory compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [5], despite minor technical omissions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise and SettlementThird-Party ActionPolice Officer InjuryAuto AccidentAppellate AffirmationStatutory ComplianceLack of PrejudiceInsurance Policy Limit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeng Xi Chen v. Spitz

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 2, 2009, which granted the plaintiff's motion for nunc pro tunc approval of a third-party settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). This order was subsequently affirmed unanimously by the appellate court. The appellate review found that nonparty appellant Lu Gang was indeed the plaintiff's employer at the time of the accident and had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) acted as the workers' compensation carrier and consented to the $25,500 settlement in the underlying action. The appellate court also determined that the plaintiff's delay in seeking court approval for the settlement was not due to his fault or neglect and did not cause prejudice to the UEF, affirming the original decision.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalUninsured Employers' FundCourt Approval DelayEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury ActionInsurance CoverageStatutory Compliance
References
2
Case No. ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ROBERT WYNNE vs. LUMEND, INC., HARFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (KEMPER)

This case involved a clerical error in the caption of a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the April 4, 2011 decision nunc pro tunc. The amendment corrected the caption to include only the relevant case number, ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815). No objections were received from the parties. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNunc Pro TuncReconsiderationAmend DecisionClerical ErrorCase CaptionAdministrative Law JudgePetition to ReassignTrial Level ProceedingsInsurer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2000

Stiffen v. CNA Insurance

Petitioner Robert W. Stiffen, injured in the course of his employment, received workers' compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. He settled a third-party action against Charles Newman for $25,000 without the carrier's prior consent. Although benefits were initially reinstated, the carrier later refused retroactive consent to the settlement. Petitioners subsequently sought nunc pro tunc approval for the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which the Supreme Court granted. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the settlement reasonable, the delay in seeking approval not attributable to petitioners' fault, and no prejudice caused to the carrier by the delay.

Nunc pro tuncPersonal injury settlementWorkers' Compensation LawThird-party actionCarrier consentJudicial approvalPrejudiceReasonableness of settlementDelay in applicationWaiver of consent
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 450 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