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
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schell v. Right

A claimant was injured in April 1993, establishing accident, notice, and causal relationship. Compensation was stipulated at $225 per week for physical disability. Later, a consequential psychiatric condition was affirmed, setting a higher payment rate of $358.73 per week from 1994. The workers' compensation carrier failed to pay this higher rate retroactively after the August 9, 2000 determination. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge imposed a penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this failure, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The claimant appealed, arguing that the penalty provisions are self-executing and mandatory for late payments. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the rescission, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the penalty for delayed award payments.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentRetroactive BenefitsPsychiatric DisabilityCarrier LiabilityMandatory PenaltyBoard ReversalAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hart v. Pageprint/Dekalb

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed a late payment penalty on an employer's carrier. The claimant, suffering from permanent partial disability due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, entered into a waiver agreement with the carrier for $35,200. Although the Board approved the agreement without a hearing, the carrier paid the claimant 20 days after approval, exceeding the 10-day limit, leading to a $7,040 penalty. The appellate court found the streamlined procedures used for approval invalid because they conflicted with 12 NYCRR 300.36, meaning the agreement was never properly approved and thus the 10-day limitations period for payment never commenced. Consequently, the penalty imposition was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for a proper hearing on the agreement.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Late Payment PenaltyWaiver AgreementBoard ApprovalStreamlined ProceduresAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardOccupational Disease
References
5
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. 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. AHM 0097551
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

THE IRON MULE vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found Dr. Eroshevich's psychiatric reports inadmissible due to violations of Labor Code section 4628 and gave notice of intent to impose a civil penalty against her. The matter was remanded to reconsider TDI rates, EDD's lien claim, and potential sanctions against the defendant for their delayed denial of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings & Award & OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityMedical-Legal Report
References
0
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2007

Laverghetta v. Tug Edge Dairy

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a ruling that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier improperly suspended claimant’s benefits and imposed a penalty. The claimant had established a work-related injury to her hand in 2003. The carrier suspended payments in April 2006 without following proper procedures, arguing justification under 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) based on an exception for no disability. However, the Board found the carrier's relied-upon November 2003 C-4 report insufficient, noting conflicting medical opinions within the report and from a subsequent independent medical examiner. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the evidence did not trigger the exception and that the mandatory penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) was properly imposed due to the carrier's failure to make timely payments.

Workers' CompensationBenefit SuspensionPenalty ImpositionMedical EvidenceDisability AssessmentProcedural ComplianceAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawCarrier LiabilityDue Process
References
4
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. ADJ2304783 (OAK 0312156)
Regular
Jul 07, 2009

ROGELIO MARTINEZ vs. URBAN BROTHERS PAINTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The defendant challenged penalties imposed for unreasonable delays in temporary and permanent disability indemnity payments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to correct clerical errors identified by the WCJ. The WCAB amended the award to reflect a corrected period for the temporary disability delay and to grant the defendant credit for a self-imposed penalty on the permanent disability delay, otherwise affirming the original decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityPenaltySelf-Imposed PenaltyUnreasonable DelayClerical ErrorCreditFindings Award and Orders
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,954 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