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. 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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. SAL 110279
Regular
Oct 19, 2007

KENNETH LANGWORTHY vs. SANTA CRUZ COMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a worker's claim for extended temporary disability benefits beyond the statutory two-year limit. The applicant argued his spinal discectomy constituted an amputation, entitling him to longer benefits under Labor Code section 4656. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that a discectomy is not an amputation under the relevant statute, citing a prior en banc decision. Therefore, the applicant's right to temporary disability benefits terminated on April 2, 2007, after the two-year statutory cap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKenneth LangworthySanta Cruz Community Counseling CenterState Compensation Insurance FunddiscectomyamputationLabor Code section 4656temporary disability benefitstwo-year capindustrial injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ789644 (GRO 0034670), ADJ3641717 (GRO 0035359)
Regular
Dec 17, 2009

MELISSA RASURA vs. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GALLAGHER BASSETT/USF & G

Defendant's petition for reconsideration is denied. The WCJ's report is adopted, and two separate 104-week/2-year caps apply due to two injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMelissa RasuraCommunity Health CentersState Compensation Insurance FundGallagher BassettUSF&GPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuriesTemporary Disability
References
2
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 3,811 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