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

New York State Public Employment Relations Board v. Board of Education

The concurring opinion, authored by Judge Fuchsberg, affirms the ultimate disposition of the case, upholding the Public Employment Relations Board's (PERB) order. The opinion delves into the critical distinction between an administrative agency exceeding its jurisdiction and merely committing an error of law. It argues that an order issued without statutory power or in excess thereof is inherently void and subject to collateral attack, even if statutory time limits for direct review have passed. Judge Fuchsberg supports this jurisdictional argument by referencing several prior cases, including *Matter of Foy v Schechter* and *Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Bohlinger*. Ultimately, the opinion concludes that the PERB's remedial orders were fully authorized due to a specific statutory violation, despite the complex jurisdictional challenges raised.

Public Employment Relations BoardAdministrative LawJurisdictionCollateral AttackStatutory InterpretationError of LawBack PayCivil Service LawArticle 78PERB
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martin v. New York Telephone

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the liability for benefits. The claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1987 and a reinjury in 1995. A 1998 Section 32 settlement agreement released the employer from future claims for a lump sum, but required it to cover medical treatment. In 2004, the claimant developed a consequential right knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately shifted liability for benefits to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, citing the passage of statutory timeframes. The Special Fund appealed, challenging its statutory liability and the employer's ongoing responsibility for medical expenses per the settlement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the applicability of Section 25-a and noting the employer's statutory obligation for medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 32 Settlement AgreementConsequential InjuryMedical Treatment LiabilityStatutory LiabilitySchedule Loss of UseAppellate ReviewTimelinessBoard Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rivera v. North Central Bronx Hospital

The employer appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the Board incorrectly interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (7) by mandating reimbursement to the claimant’s doctor for an EMG test. The employer contended that since the claimant failed to use a specified provider as per statutory notice, it should not be obligated to pay. However, the court found no statutory or historical support for nonpayment as a remedy, noting that the law aims to provide swift benefits to injured employees and prevent providers from collecting directly from workers. The court emphasized that allowing the employer to avoid payment would harm medical providers and deter their participation in the workers’ compensation system. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, requiring the employer to pay its in-network rate to the claimant's doctor.

Workers' Compensation LawEMG test reimbursementEmployer appealStatutory interpretationMedical provider paymentClaimant medical expensesSelf-insured employersDiagnostic testsLegislative intentBoard decision affirmed
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Rome v. State of New York Public Employment Relations Board

The City of Rome eliminated the position of acting purchasing agent and transferred the duties to non-unit employees. Marilyn McLiesh's bargaining unit, CSEA, filed an improper practice charge, leading PERB to order McLiesh's reinstatement with back pay. The City of Rome initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that McLiesh's prolonged service as an acting agent violated NY Constitution, article V, § 6. The Supreme Court agreed, annulling the reinstatement and back pay order. Upon appeal by CSEA and PERB, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, ruling that McLiesh's employment beyond the statutory temporary period was unconstitutional and therefore PERB exceeded its authority by ordering her reinstatement.

CPLR Article 78Improper Practice ProceedingPublic Employment Relations BoardCivil Service LawConstitutional ViolationReinstatement OrderBack PayProvisional EmployeeBargaining Unit WorkAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Place v. Ryder

Claimant, who received workers' compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, settled a third-party action. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer had waived its statutory offset rights against the claimant's net recovery from the third-party action, as there was no written agreement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding that the self-insured employer had reserved its offset rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's attorney's correspondence provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that offset rights were explicitly reserved.

Workers' CompensationOffset RightsThird-Party SettlementEmployer's LienStatutory WaiverAttorney CorrespondenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cortijo v. Ilfin Corp.

A decedent, employed as a building superintendent, was found dead from a 12-gauge shotgun wound on his employer's premises during working hours. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the unexplained death, occurring on the employer's property and during working hours, raised a presumption of compensability under section 21 of the Workers' Compensation Law. This presumption led to the conclusion that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, justifying an award of death benefits to the claimant. The Board found that police testimony regarding the decedent's prior illegal activities was insufficient to rebut this statutory presumption. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding them supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPresumption of CompensabilityUnexplained DeathEmployment InjuryOn-Premises DeathStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Blain v. Emsig Manufacturing Corp.

On March 29, 1993, the claimant suffered back and neck injuries from a fall at her workplace. She continued working until June 2, 1993, when severe pain prevented her from continuing. At this point, she notified her employer of the work-related injury while submitting a disability benefits request. A formal workers' compensation claim was filed on August 31, 1993, exceeding the statutory 30-day notice period. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused the late notice, determining the claimant informed her employer as soon as the injury's severity was realized. The appellate court affirmed this decision, clarifying that proving prejudice to the employer is not a prerequisite for excusing late notice.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer NotificationDisability BenefitsBack InjuryNeck InjuryExcuse for Late NoticePrejudiceBoard Decision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,764 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