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

Claim of Wilkinson v. Bendix Friction Corp.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim after being diagnosed with a lung condition, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined in August 2003 was an occupational disease causally related to 1969 asbestos exposure while working for the employer, though not currently disabling. The claimant sought review. The Workers' Compensation Board, in January 2004, found the employer's rebuttals to be untimely. Subsequently, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review in February 2004, which the Board denied as untimely in October 2004. The employer appealed this denial. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application as untimely, given that the employer had received proper notice of the WCLJ decision.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureCausal RelationDisability ClaimAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2006

Burr Ex Rel. Burr v. Toyota Motor Credit Co.

Howard and Daisy Burr, New York residents, sued Liliana Serrano (New Jersey resident) and Toyota Motor Credit Co. (TMCC) for injuries Daisy sustained in a car accident. The case, initially filed in New York Supreme Court, was removed to federal court by TMCC on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. The Burrs moved to remand, arguing untimely removal and lack of Serrano’s consent, and that the amount in controversy was not met. The court found that while the amount in controversy requirement was likely met due to Daisy's "serious and severe permanent personal injuries", TMCC's removal petition was untimely. TMCC either waived service by filing a joint Answer on August 10, 2006, or was served on August 14, 2006, making its September 15, 2006 removal untimely. Additionally, Serrano's written consent was not filed until October 2, 2006, further rendering the removal petition defective. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motion to remand was granted, and the case was sent back to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County.

RemovalRemandDiversity JurisdictionTimelinessConsentAmount in ControversyPersonal InjuryCar AccidentNegligenceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 78107628
Regular Panel Decision

Stojanov v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 10, 2008, which ruled that his applications for review were untimely. These claims stemmed from 1981 work-related accidents, reopened in 2008 with liability transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied compensation in May 2008, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The Board found claimant's applications for review, mailed on the 30th day but received later, were untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 requires filing within 30 days, not just mailing.

timelinessSpecial FundBoard reviewappealWCLJ decisionfiling deadlinemailed applicationamended decisionstatutory interpretationadministrative review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlingford Australia General Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Carlingford Australia General Insurance Limited (plaintiff) and defendant reinsurers, including St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company, and CIGNA Corporation, along with broker Marsh & McLennan, Inc., concerning a worker's compensation reinsurance policy. The core issue revolves around whether the reinsurance was on an aggregate or per-occurrence basis. Defendants moved to amend their answers to introduce an affirmative defense and counterclaim for rescission, alleging the plaintiff concealed material facts about its premium arrangements with the insured (Courtaulds-Nilsen), which seemingly guaranteed the plaintiff a profit. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law such as Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Ocean Insurance Company and China Union Lines v. American Marine Underwriters, granted the reinsurers' motion to amend their answers, concluding that the arguments regarding the materiality of the non-disclosures address the merits and should be allowed to be tested.

Reinsurance DisputeWorker's Compensation InsuranceMotion to Amend PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCounterclaim for RescissionMaterial NondisclosureInsurance PremiumsUnderwriting PracticesBroker LiabilityContract Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aldridge v. AC Rochester Products

The claimant, an employee of AC Rochester Products, experienced severe chest pain during employment in December 1987. After multiple medical examinations, her condition was diagnosed in January 1990 as chronic pain syndrome and costochondritis, related to the 1987 incident. She subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim in April 1990. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the claim untimely, determining the injury was an accident and not an occupational disease. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the injuries resulted from an accident, making the claim untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimOccupational DiseaseAccidentChronic Pain SyndromeCostochondritisStatute of LimitationsMedical DiagnosisAppealEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyso v. City of New York

In a wrongful death action, plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which permitted the defendant to amend its answer. The amendment sought to add an affirmative defense asserting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The defendant’s motion to amend was granted approximately three years after the initial answer was served. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. It reasoned that the plaintiffs were aware of the decedent's employment status and thus could not claim surprise or prejudice. The court also clarified that the workers' compensation defense is only waived if not raised until final disposition, concluding that the defendant’s alleged delay did not preclude the amendment.

Wrongful Death ActionWorkers' Compensation DefenseAmendment of PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCPLR 3025CPLR 3205PrejudiceLachesWaiverAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,256 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