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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hazzard v. Adams Russell Cable Services

Claimant, a line technician, sustained a left knee injury in January 1987 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until August 1995. The employer's carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a contention upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that a C-4 medical report from 1987 or an advance payment of compensation should have prevented the claim from being time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that the C-4 report was filed with the Board within the two-year statutory period, nor that the employer or carrier made an advance payment to waive the statute of limitations.

Workers' CompensationTime-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentMedical ReportBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryLine Technician
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Mehra v. City of New York

Petitioner Sushil Mehra sustained injuries on January 4, 2011, after falling from a scaffold during a construction project while employed by Vardaris Tech, Inc. Petitioners served a notice of claim on the New York City School Construction Authority (NYCSCA) on August 5, 2011, exceeding the statutory 90-day period. The Supreme Court initially granted the petitioners' motion to deem the notice of claim timely served. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no reasonable excuse for the delay, no actual notice to NYCSCA within the statutory period, and substantial prejudice to NYCSCA due to the delay. Consequently, the motion to deem the notice of claim timely served was denied.

Notice of ClaimTimelinessLate FilingScaffold AccidentWorkers' CompensationPrejudiceActual NoticeGeneral Municipal LawLabor LawNew York City School Construction Authority
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. ADJ7264895, ADJ9813796
Regular
Jul 16, 2018

MARIA GALLARDO vs. HELP-N-TIME, INC., Doing Business as MERRY MAIDS, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment on February 4, 2010, largely due to credibility issues with the applicant's testimony. However, the Board also affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's petition to reopen for new and further disability for her October 30, 2009 injury was timely filed. This determination was based on correspondence that put the defendant on notice of the claim within the statutory period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersInjury AOE/COEPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilitySelf-InsuredWCJ Credibility DeterminationLabor Code § 5410Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cerami v. Rochester City School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that found a claimant’s benefit claim untimely. The claim, filed in 1980, stemmed from a mental breakdown in 1966-1967 alleged to be work-related. The Board ruled the claimant was mentally competent to file within the two-year statutory period (WCL § 28), thus rejecting the tolling provision for mental incompetency (WCL § 115). The appellate court reviewed the medical testimony of Dr. Leve and Dr. Pisetzner, concluding the Board misconstrued their findings regarding the claimant’s capacity to comprehend his mental illness as work-related, despite general competence to file other claims. The court found overwhelming medical evidence indicated the claimant was mentally incapable of filing a claim for employment-induced mental illness and therefore deemed the claim timely under WCL § 115 due to continuing mental incapacity. Additionally, the court found substantial, virtually unanimous medical testimony confirming the work-related causation of the claimant’s mental illness, contrary to the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s determination. The decision was reversed, compensation benefits granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimTimeliness of ClaimMental IncompetencyTolling Statute of LimitationsParanoid SchizophreniaEmployment-Induced Psychological InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical Testimony InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversal of Board Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ2255696 (VNO 0497652)
Regular
May 15, 2009

TATIANA ZAKIANS vs. BLOOMINGDALES

Lien claimant Sam Alaiti, M.D., sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order reducing his lien by over $80\%$. The WCJ recommended granting reconsideration, noting procedural issues with the petition's timely attention by the judge. The Appeals Board found the petition timely filed, but it did not come to their attention until after the statutory reconsideration period had passed. Citing due process principles, the Board held the reconsideration period begins upon their actual notice. Therefore, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Reducing LienOrder to Pay Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeEAMSFileNetstatutory time periodAppeals Boarddue process
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 03467 [127 AD3d 632]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2015

Matter of Gonzalez v. City of New York

Petitioners, including Anthony Gonzalez, sought to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York and other MTA entities after Gonzalez sustained an injury in a fall. They cited Hurricane Sandy as a reason for their inability to meet with counsel and file timely. However, the court found that Gonzalez had misrepresented his ability to travel during that period. The Supreme Court granted their motion to deem the late notice of claim timely filed. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the petitioners' motion. The court also noted that the respondents did not acquire actual notice of the essential facts regarding negligence within the statutory period.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eReasonable ExcuseHurricane Sandy ImpactMisrepresentation to CourtActual Notice RequirementAppellate ProcedureSummary DispositionEvidentiary ProofPrejudice by Delay
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,000 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