New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Workers' Compensation Law § 23 (2026)
Appeals
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 23. Appeals. An award or decision of the board shall be final and conclusive upon all questions within its jurisdiction, as against the state fund or between the parties, unless reversed or modified on appeal therefrom as hereinafter provided. Any party may within thirty days after notice of the filing of an award or decision of a referee, file with the board an application in writing for a modification or rescission or review of such award or decision, as provided in this chapter. The board shall render its decision upon such application in writing and shall include in such decision a statement of the facts which formed the basis of its action on the issues raised before it on such application. Within thirty days after notice of the decision of the board upon such application has been served upon the parties, or within thirty days after notice of an administrative redetermination review decision by the chair pursuant to subdivision five of section fifty-two, section one hundred thirty-one or section one hundred forty-one-a of this chapter has been served upon any party in interest, an appeal may be taken therefrom to the appellate division of the supreme court, third department, by any party in interest, including an employer insured in the state fund; provided, however, that any party in interest may within thirty days after notice of the filing of the board panel's decision with the secretary of the board, make application in writing for review thereof by the full board. If the decision or determination was that of a panel of the board and there was a dissent from such decision or determination other than a dissent the sole basis of which is to refer the case to an impartial specialist, or if there was a decision or determination by the panel which reduced the loss of wage earning capacity finding made by a compensation claims referee pursuant to subparagraph w of subdivision three of section fifteen of this article from a percentage at or above the percentage set forth in subdivision three of section thirty-five of this article whereby a claimant would be eligible to apply for an extreme hardship redetermination to a percentage below the threshold, the full board shall review and affirm, modify or rescind such decision or determination in the same manner as herein above provided for an award or decision of a referee. If the decision or determination was that of a unanimous panel of the board, or there was a dissent from such decision or determination the sole basis of which is to refer the case to an impartial specialist, the board may in its sole discretion review and affirm, modify or rescind such decision or determination in the same manner as herein above provided for an award or decision of a referee. Failure to apply for review by the full board shall not bar any party in interest from taking an appeal directly to the court as above provided. The board may also, in its discretion certify to such appellate division of the supreme court, questions of law involved in its decision. Such appeals and the question so certified shall be heard in a summary manner and shall have precedence over all other civil cases in such court. The board shall be deemed a party to every such appeal from its decision upon such application, and the chair shall be deemed a party to every such appeal from an administrative redetermination review decision pursuant to subdivision five of section fifty-two of this chapter. The attorney general shall represent the board and the chair thereon. An appeal may also be taken to the court of appeals in the same manner and subject to the same limitations not inconsistent herewith as is now provided in the civil practice law and rules. It shall not be necessary to file exceptions to the rulings of the board. An appeal to the appellate division of the supreme court, third department, or to the court of appeals, shall not operate as a stay of the payment of compensation required by the terms of the award or of the payment of the cost of such medical, dental, surgical, optometric or other attendance, treatment, devices, apparatus or other necessary items the employer is required to provide pursuant to section thirteen of this article which are found to be fair and reasonable. Where such award is modified or rescinded upon appeal, the appellant shall be entitled to reimbursement in a sum equal to the compensation in dispute paid to the respondent in addition to a sum equal to the cost of such medical, dental, surgical, optometric or other attendance, treatment, devices, apparatus or other necessary items the employer is required to provide pursuant to section thirteen of this article paid by the appellant pending adjudication of the appeal. Such reimbursement shall be paid from administration expenses as provided in section one hundred fifty-one of this chapter upon audit and warrant of the comptroller upon vouchers approved by the chair. Where such award is subject to the provisions of section twenty-seven of this article, the appellant shall pay directly to the claimant all compensation as it becomes due during the pendency of the appeal, and upon affirmance shall be entitled to credit for such payments. Neither the chair, the board, the commissioners of the state insurance fund nor the claimant shall be required to file a bond upon an appeal to the court of appeals. Upon final determination of such an appeal, the board or chair, as the case may be, shall enter an order in accordance therewith. Whenever a notice of appeal is served or an application made to the board by the employer or insurance carrier for a modification or rescission or review of an award or decision, and the board shall find that such notice of appeal was served or such application was made for the purpose of delay or upon frivolous grounds, the board shall impose a penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars upon the employer or insurance carrier, which penalty shall be added to the compensation and paid to the claimant. The penalties provided herein shall be collected in like manner as compensation. A party against whom an award of compensation shall be made may appeal from a part of such award. In such a case the payment of such part of the award as is not appealed from shall not prejudice any rights of such party on appeal, nor be taken as an admission against such party. Any appeal by an employer from an administrative redetermination review decision pursuant to subdivision five of section fifty-two of this chapter shall in no way serve to relieve the employer from the obligation to timely pay compensation and benefits otherwise payable in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to inhibit the continuing jurisdiction of the board as provided in section one hundred twenty-three of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Matter of Griego v. Mr Bult's, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
Matter of Griego v. Mr Bult's, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “As an initial matter, the carrier argues that the Board was required to address the merits of its application for Board review pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 23 notwithstanding the Board's finding that the carrier's application for Board review failed to comply with the…”
Matter of Abdiyev v. Eagle Container Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 1879 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “13 (b) (4) (v) is not inconsistent with Workers' Compensation Law § 23. Although Workers' Compensation Law § 23 provides that "[i]t shall not be necessary to file exceptions to the rulings of the [B]oard," the provision relates to the necessity of filing exceptions to Board…”
Matter of De La Cruz v. Aufiero Painting Indus. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 4216 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “Finally, we are unpersuaded that the Board abused its discretion in denying claimant's untimely request for mandatory full Board review ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 23), notwithstanding the proffered excuse for the delay.”
Claim of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, Inc., 493 N.E.2d 228 (NY 1986). “2d 130, 132-133 ; Workers' Compensation Law § 23). The argument raises solely a question of statutory interpretation, however, which we may address even though it was not presented below ( see , Telaro v Telaro , 25 N.”
Matter of Mendrok v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 00702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “Initially, claimant's contention that the employer did not timely file an administrative appeal from the WCLJ's April 11, 2019 decision is belied by the record, which reflects that such application was filed on May 9, 2019, prior to the expiration of the 30-day time limit ( see…”
Matter of Navarro v. Gen. Motors, 2020 NY Slip Op 2504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “Rather, I find such contentions to be reviewable, as the Board's decision with respect thereto is final for the purposes of appeal ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 23). Further, any future appeal from the Board's decision on permanency or the Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a…”
Matter of Kornreich v. Elmont Glass Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03352 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “The issues raised on appeal pertain to the finding that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and, thus, claimant is the party of interest pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 23, and the notice of appeal should have been filed on his behalf ( see Matter of…”
Matter of Gorbea v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06580 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Claimant's administrative appeal was filed with the Workers' Compensation Board in April 2019 and was therefore untimely ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 23), but she alleged that she had, in fact, submitted a timely appeal that was never processed by the Board.”
Matter of Grinnage v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 06523 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “The employer made no such showing and, more to the point, did not establish that there were defects in claimant's proof of service ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 23; 12 NYCRR 300.”
Matter of Zuniga v. Aliah Home Care Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 2696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “, 105 AD3d 1113 , 1114 [2013]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 23; 12 NYCRR 300.”
Matter of Ippolito v. NYC Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “The employer contends that the Board erred in not addressing the issues raised in its application for administrative review.”
Matter of Lopez v. Platoon Constr., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “As this Court previously has held, "a request for full Board review does not toll the statutory time period within which to file an appeal" pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 23 and, contrary to Platoon's present assertion, "an appeal from a denial of a request for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.