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. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Domanico v. Woodmere Fire District

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 4, 2005, which denied an employer's request for reimbursement of wages paid to a claimant during a period of disability. The court examined whether a June 24, 2004 notice, issued by the self-insured employer, Woodmere Fire District, containing language about reimbursement, was sufficient as a request under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a). The court found the notice to be sufficient in form. However, a critical issue remained regarding the timeliness of this request; specifically, whether it was filed prior to the compensation award made at the January 7, 2005 hearing. Due to this unresolved issue, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the timeliness of the reimbursement request.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementEmployer Wage ReimbursementDisability WagesTimeliness of Reimbursement RequestWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision AppealJudicial ReversalRemittal for Further ProceedingsNew York Workers' CompensationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
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 Lewis v. Stewart's Marketing Corp.

A claimant sustained serious injuries in 1997 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. In 2008, a dispute arose regarding the permanency and degree of disability, with conflicting medical reports submitted by the claimant (permanent total disability) and the employer (moderate partial disability). The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the employer's request to cross-examine the claimant and his physician, subsequently ruling that the claimant had a permanent total disability. Upon appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that denying the employer's timely request for cross-examination was improper, especially given the conflicting medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers’ CompensationDisability AssessmentPermanent Total DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationCross-Examination RightsProcedural Due ProcessConflicting Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramaglia v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioners, including union representative Joseph Ramaglia, requested payroll records from a steel company under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) through the Department of Transportation (DOT). They sought to determine if the steel company, a contractor for overpass replacement on the Long Island Expressway, was violating prevailing wage laws. DOT denied the request, stating it neither possessed nor was required to collect these records, as the steel company was merely a materials supplier, not directly involved in public works construction. Petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel DOT to obtain and produce the records. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, agreeing that DOT had no obligation to the supplier's records. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the prevailing wage law does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods, even custom or shop-finished products, especially when such work is a normal part of manufacturing and not typically done on-site.

Freedom of Information LawFOIL RequestPublic Works ContractPrevailing Wage LawMaterials SupplierPayroll RecordsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Metzger v. Champion International Corp.

Claimant, a pulp tester, sustained a right hip and thigh injury at work in 1994. After initial hearings and the establishment of the claim, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed parties to file medical opinions on permanency. The carrier repeatedly failed to present its own expert or obtain a consultant's opinion despite multiple opportunities. The WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the carrier's requests for adjournments, awarding the claimant a 66 2/3% schedule loss of use. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the carrier's request, citing its lack of preparedness.

Workers' CompensationAdjournment DenialMedical OpinionPermanencySchedule Loss of UseCarrier DelayAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingEvidence SubmissionProcedural Due Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maiorano v. Plumbing

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits after being injured as a plumber in New York City. Despite residing in Brooklyn, the claimant sought to have hearings in White Plains, Westchester County, for convenience. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, additionally assessing $500 in costs against the claimant’s counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board Chair has authority over hearing locations and the claimant failed to provide a reasonable basis for the change of venue. The court also upheld the penalty assessment, finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the request lacked a reasonable basis.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewProcedural DenialCost AssessmentJudicial AuthorityAdministrative DiscretionClaimant RightsBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,981 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