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. 533556
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Alastair Kennedy

Claimant, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site. He initially filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were accepted for left foot and ankle injuries. He later alleged neck and left shoulder injuries, which the carrier contested, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation due to alleged misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant's testimony not credible regarding the accident and prior injuries, disallowed the neck and shoulder claims, and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties under § 114-a. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision to disallow the claims for neck and shoulder injuries and upheld the mandatory penalty for misrepresentation, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court reversed the imposition of the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, thereby modifying the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuriesCredibility DeterminationMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. 533960
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of John Koratzanis

Claimant John Koratzanis sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and filed for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Koratzanis failed to disclose authoring and self-publishing books while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, only correcting typographical errors and clarifying penalty dates. The carrier appealed, seeking an earlier start date for the mandatory penalty and a discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the penalty duration and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining a discretionary penalty.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationUndisclosed EmploymentMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPublishing Income Disclosure
References
12
Case No. ADJ10977396
Regular
Apr 09, 2019

PEDRO OSORIO vs. BUENAVENTURA RANCH, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case concerns an applicant's claim for Labor Code section 5814 penalties due to the defendant's alleged unreasonable refusal to pay temporary and permanent disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the issue of penalties was properly before the trial judge despite the lack of a formal penalty petition. The Board determined that the original decision lacked sufficient explanation for denying penalties, given evidence suggesting delayed payments and the opinion of a doctor regarding the industrial nature of the applicant's disability. Consequently, the matter is returned to the trial level for further development of the record and determination on the merits of the section 5814 penalty claim.

Labor Code Section 5814Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Disability BenefitsUnreasonable Refusal to PayWCJ Report and RecommendationDeposition of Dr. PearsonBenefits PrintoutNotice of Permanent Disability Payments
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05568 [209 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Koratzanis v. U.S. Concrete, Inc.

Claimant John Koratzanis, a concrete mixer truck driver, sustained a work-related injury in October 2017 and subsequently filed a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, contending that Koratzanis failed to disclose his activities of authoring and self-publishing books on Amazon while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a violation and imposed a mandatory penalty, but declined to impose a discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision with minor corrections to the mandatory penalty dates. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination regarding the mandatory penalty duration was supported by substantial evidence and that its decision not to impose a discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyUndisclosed ActivitiesSelf-PublicationBenefit DisqualificationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionOverpayment Credit
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01867
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Restrepo v. Plaza Motors of Brooklyn Inc.

Claimant Javier Restrepo, a truck driver, established work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended when the carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose operating businesses while receiving benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation and imposed a significant discretionary penalty. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the violation more narrowly, based on the claimant's admitted operation of Jady Car Carrier Corporation, and imposed a mandatory penalty and a lesser discretionary penalty. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the Board abused its discretion by imposing a lesser penalty. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's chosen penalty was not "so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" and thus not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation FraudWage Replacement BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCredibility DeterminationTruck DriverBusiness Operation
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Aug 03, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

This case concerns applicant Balgovind Sharma's claim for workers' compensation penalties against Lam Research Corp. and Matrix San Jose for alleged unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment. Following a stipulation on August 4, 2009, which agreed to authorize specific treatments, applicant sought penalties for sixteen prior, unaddressed treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that applicant did not "expressly exclude" penalty claims from the stipulation as required by Labor Code section 5814(c). Consequently, all accrued penalty claims, including those not specifically mentioned in the stipulation, were conclusively presumed resolved by the stipulation.

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Calderon v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose prior injuries and schedule loss of use awards, thereby disqualifying him from future benefits. The Board had also assessed various $500 penalties against the claimant and his counsel. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination that the claimant made a material misrepresentation under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1), upholding his disqualification. However, the court modified the decision by reversing two specific $500 penalties: one against claimant and counsel for submitting a physician's addendum, and another against counsel regarding an independent medical examiner’s deposition, citing a lack of substantial evidence for these penalties. The remaining $500 penalty against counsel for raising unsubstantiated allegations against the employer was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseMaterial MisrepresentationPenaltiesAppellate ReviewFraudMedical EvidencePrior InjuriesBoard DecisionCounsel Sanctions
References
5
Case No. CV-23-2275
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffery DeBryne

Claimant Jeffery DeBryne, classified as permanently totally disabled due to work-related injuries, was alleged to have violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by providing an estimate for a home improvement project while wearing a company logo. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a § 114-a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty and a six-month discretionary disqualification. On appeal, the Board conceded the mandatory penalty's effective date should be April 6, 2022, not October 12, 2022. The primary issue for the Appellate Division was whether the Board abused its discretion by not imposing a permanent disqualification. The Court found the Board's reasoning, based on the absence of observed "actual work" by the claimant, to be cogent and upheld the six-month discretionary penalty, modifying only the effective date of the mandatory penalty and remitting for further proceedings.

FraudDisability BenefitsDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory PenaltyWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aPermanent DisqualificationSurveillance ReportHome Improvement ProjectRemitted
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,403 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