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 Bitterman v. Friscos Restaurant, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the cancellation of an insurance policy. The Board initially found the Fund's cancellation failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54(5) due to a lack of a return receipt request. An amended decision modified this, citing insufficient proof of a return receipt request. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, emphasizing the strict requirement for statutory compliance in policy cancellation and the insufficiency of a mailing manifest without proof of a return receipt request. The court noted the absence of testimony establishing the Fund's office practice for proper mailing.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationCertified MailReturn ReceiptStatutory ComplianceMailing ManifestProof of MailingAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundUninsured Employers' Fund
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2001

Citrin v. Merkle

The claimant, rendered quadriplegic by a 1972 work accident, was classified as permanently totally disabled. A 1988 Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision authorized reimbursement for home-care services, but the carrier subsequently withheld payments, citing a dispute over the claimant's receipt of services. A 1997 WCLJ decision rejected the fraud claim and directed payment of outstanding home-care expenses, which the Workers’ Compensation Board upheld in 1998. The Board then granted the claimant's request for interest and penalties, but determined interest should accrue from December 21, 1998, the date of the Board's direction for payment, rather than September 20, 1988, the initial authorization date. The claimant appealed this calculation, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision, stating that interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (1) requires an actual 'award' rather than a mere 'authorization' for services.

Workers' CompensationQuadriplegiaPermanent Total DisabilityHome Care ServicesInterest CalculationPenaltiesWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealFraud ClaimAward Date
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. ADJ9292791
Regular
Sep 29, 2015

HIEP LE NGOC NGUYEN vs. OAKS CLUB ROOM, NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant's petition for removal after the WCJ denied their request for a new Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) panel. The denial was based on the original QME's failure to issue a timely supplemental report despite two requests. Although the QME claimed non-receipt of the requests, the supplemental report has now been provided. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding that issuing a new panel would only cause further delay given the report is now available.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical ExaminerSupplemental ReportRule 38(i)Administrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportPrejudiceIrreparable HarmUntimely ReportPanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
2
Case No. ADJ8917716
Regular
May 03, 2016

INGA CZECH vs. BANK OF AMERICA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Bank of America sought reconsideration of an award for medical treatment, arguing the Request for Authorization (RFA) was improperly served on their attorney, not the adjuster, thus not triggering utilization review timelines. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's physician's requested treatment was reasonable. The Board held that when an attorney receives an RFA and the defense has objected to its receipt, the attorney has a duty to transmit it to the claims administrator to fulfill the duty of good faith investigation. Therefore, the defendant's failure to process the treatment request after receiving it through their attorney resulted in liability for the awarded medical care.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Request for Authorization (RFA)Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Expedited HearingAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Agency LawAttorney NegligenceGood Faith Investigation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lewis v. Stewart's Marketing Corp.

A claimant sustained serious injuries in 1997 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. In 2008, a dispute arose regarding the permanency and degree of disability, with conflicting medical reports submitted by the claimant (permanent total disability) and the employer (moderate partial disability). The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the employer's request to cross-examine the claimant and his physician, subsequently ruling that the claimant had a permanent total disability. Upon appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that denying the employer's timely request for cross-examination was improper, especially given the conflicting medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers’ CompensationDisability AssessmentPermanent Total DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationCross-Examination RightsProcedural Due ProcessConflicting Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramaglia v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioners, including union representative Joseph Ramaglia, requested payroll records from a steel company under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) through the Department of Transportation (DOT). They sought to determine if the steel company, a contractor for overpass replacement on the Long Island Expressway, was violating prevailing wage laws. DOT denied the request, stating it neither possessed nor was required to collect these records, as the steel company was merely a materials supplier, not directly involved in public works construction. Petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel DOT to obtain and produce the records. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, agreeing that DOT had no obligation to the supplier's records. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the prevailing wage law does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods, even custom or shop-finished products, especially when such work is a normal part of manufacturing and not typically done on-site.

Freedom of Information LawFOIL RequestPublic Works ContractPrevailing Wage LawMaterials SupplierPayroll RecordsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,123 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