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
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

Claim of Jex v. Albion Correctional Facility

A vocational cosmetology instructor, the claimant, sustained a workplace injury in 1994, exacerbating preexisting respiratory issues, and received workers' compensation benefits until October 1995. In 1999, before taking disability retirement, she filed a new claim for an occupational disease caused by workplace air quality dating back to 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed her occupational disease claim time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a decision upheld after her application for reconsideration was denied. The court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that occupational disease claims must be filed within two years of disablement and awareness of its work-related cause. Evidence from October and December 1995 indicated the claimant's knowledge of the link between her respiratory problems and employment, thus rendering her 1999 claim untimely.

Occupational diseaseUntimely claimTime-barredRespiratory problemsVocational cosmetology instructorWorkers’ Compensation BoardAppealEvidence of knowledgeDisablement dateWorkplace injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
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. 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

Claim of Priola v. Andrews Staffing

Claimant, a truck driver, sustained work-related knee and back injuries in December 1998 and sought workers' compensation benefits. After initial awards, a WCLJ decision on October 4, 2001, apportioned 10% of the injury to the work accident and 90% to a prior non-work-related motor vehicle accident. Claimant's subsequent application for Board review was deemed untimely because the specific grounds for appeal were filed on November 15, 2001, beyond the 30-day statutory limit. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected the late application, and this court affirmed that decision.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of AppealBoard ReviewApportionmentProcedural IssuesWorkers' Compensation LawLate FilingJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of D'Addio v. Peter Annis, Inc.

A widow filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband, who had an established claim for asbestosis, died. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a work-related death and ordered the employer's carrier to deposit funds into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) in July 2010. The carrier did not appeal this initial decision. After a subsequent WCLJ decision in December 2010 reiterated the ATF deposit, the carrier sought review, arguing the deposit was unwarranted. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the carrier's application as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the 30-day appeal period for the July 2010 decision had expired and the later WCLJ decision did not extend that timeframe. The court found no abuse of discretion by the Board.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationAggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsAsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionTimelinessAppeal Denial
References
5
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. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Graniero v. Northern Westchester Hospital

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed in January and June 1998, which found a claimant's workers’ compensation claim untimely. The claimant, who experienced bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 1992 or 1993 and was advised it was work-related, did not file a claim until February 1996. The Board determined the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, as the claimant knew of the work-related condition within the statutory two-year period and failed to notify the employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in setting the date of disablement and noting the claimant's early awareness of the work-related nature of his condition.

Workers' CompensationTimelinessOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementStatute of LimitationsAppellate DecisionMedical TreatmentEmployer NotificationBoard Decision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,051 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