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

MacTaggart v. Gibbs & Cox. Inc.

This appeal concerns the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute for over five years. The plaintiffs' primary excuse for the delay was their involvement in another litigation concerning similar issues. However, the court found that the issues in the two cases were not identical, and a significant period of a year and a half elapsed after the conclusion of the prior litigation without any further action on the present case. The court also considered the prejudice to the defendant, noting the difficulty and impracticability of recouping extra costs from clients related to contracts completed between February 1944 and December 1945. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action.

failure to prosecutedismissal of actionappellate reviewdiscretionary powerprejudice to defendantdelay in litigationstipulationsamended complaintnote of issueextra compensation
References
1
Case No. OAK 0311431
Regular
Nov 30, 2007

JESUS GUERRERO vs. HERTZ HEAVY EQUIPMENT RENTAL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an award of temporary disability indemnity beyond two years from the initial payment. The Board held that Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) strictly limits temporary disability payments to 104 weeks within a two-year period from the commencement of such payments. Therefore, the applicant's claim for benefits commencing in 2007 was barred, as the two-year window from his 2004 injury had already expired.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disability indemnity104 compensable weekstwo-year periodcommencement of temporary disability paymentPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardrescindstipulatedindustrial injury
References
6
Case No. SBR 0331312
Regular
Feb 19, 2008

ROBERT C. DAVIS vs. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's award of temporary disability indemnity beyond the statutory two-year limit. The Board held that Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) strictly limits temporary disability payments to 104 weeks within a two-year period from the initial payment date. Although the employer's utilization review practices arguably delayed treatment, the Board found no legal justification for extending payments past the two-year cap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Two-Year Limit104 Compensable WeeksCommencement of PaymentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Utilization Review (UR)Epidural Injections
References
4
Case No. MON 0333042 MON 0333043
Regular
May 01, 2008

JOSE LUIS CASTANEDA vs. SAMY'S CAMERA, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Jose Luis Castaneda's claim for temporary disability benefits following two work-related injuries from Samy's Camera, Inc. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award limiting temporary disability to two years from commencement, finding that concurrent injuries result in a concurrent application of the two-year cap under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). This decision aligns with the appellate court's ruling in *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which held that the 104-week/2-year limitation runs concurrently when independent injuries cause simultaneous temporary disability.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnitypetition for reconsiderationtwo-year capFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.aggregate disability paymentsconcurrent periodsspecific injurycumulative injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. CV-24-1581
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Matter of Foster v. Monadnock Constr. Inc.

Claimant, a laborer, was injured in May 2020 when a ladder struck him in the face. The employer and carrier accepted liability for facial injuries. In 2023, claimant's physicians sought authorization for treatment of traumatic brain injury and other conditions, which the carrier declined, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding that it had received sufficient notice of the claim within two years of the accident due to prompt notification and submission of medical records. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the medical records documenting claimant's symptoms constituted sufficient notice, and the two-year limit does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-Concussion SyndromeNotice of ClaimMedical RecordsTimely FilingConsequential InjuriesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
8
Case No. Appellate Division Docket No. 2022-000000
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2023

Matter of Howard v. Facilities Maintenance Corporation

Shamira Bell appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision regarding reimbursement for lost wage payments from the Special Disability Fund. The WCB had determined that the employer's application for reimbursement was untimely, filed more than two years after the final decision that the case was subject to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d). The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, rejecting Bell's argument that the two-year period for filing a claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d) should commence only after a final administrative award determined the total reimbursement amount. The court clarified that the two-year period begins upon the Board's final determination that the case falls under the specified section of the Workers' Compensation Law. In this instance, the Board's August 2019 decision established this final determination, rendering the employer's July 2022 reimbursement application untimely.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimTimeliness of ApplicationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionSection 15 (8) (d)Final DeterminationLost Wage PaymentsStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirschner v. Berger

The petitioner, a mother of a two-year-old and public assistance recipient, enrolled in a two-year business administration program at Dutchess Community College in February 1975 upon the recommendation of a social service agency. In March 1975, her day care allowance was discontinued by the local agency, a decision later affirmed by the respondent after a fair hearing, on the grounds that her training was not necessary for gainful employment. The court found this determination arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, noting that Department of Social Services regulations (18 NYCRR 385.1 [a] [4], 352.7 [a] [1]) entitle participants in a two-year college program to unemployable status and incidental educational allowances, including child care services. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings by highlighting that the petitioner was not challenging the regulation itself but asserting her course of study fit within the existing provisions. Consequently, the determination to discontinue the child care services was annulled, and the petition granted.

Day Care AllowancePublic AssistanceSocial ServicesVocational TrainingTwo-Year College ProgramChild Care ServicesAdministrative DeterminationCPLR Article 78Abuse of DiscretionRegulatory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. LAO 0854791, LAO 0854792
Regular
Sep 12, 2007

JOSE GONZALO VASQUEZ vs. CITY OF PASADENA, legally uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, finding that Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) limits temporary disability indemnity to 104 compensable weeks within a two-year period. The Board determined that since the applicant sustained two injuries to the same body part less than two weeks apart, and temporary disability began after the second injury, the two-year limitation runs concurrently for both, not consecutively. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to double the maximum temporary disability period.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Pasadenalegally uninsuredindustrial injuryright shoulderneckmaintenance public workertemporary disabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)104 compensable weeks
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,712 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