New York Form WCB RB-89 is the Application for Board Review that any party who disagrees with a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision must file with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board to ask a three-member Board Panel to review and overturn that decision. The form is filed under Workers’ Compensation Law §23 and the procedural rule found at 12 NYCRR §300.13 within 30 days of the filing date of the WCLJ’s notice of decision.
Miss that 30-day window or skip a required field, and the Board will reject your appeal without even reading your arguments. According to the Workers’ Compensation Board’s annual report, the Board issues over 18,000 administrative review decisions each year, and a significant share of RB-89 applications are denied for procedural defects rather than the merits. This guide walks you through every box, every signature line, and every attachment so your appeal gets heard.
Here is what you will learn:
- 📝 How to complete every numbered item on Form RB-89 line by line with sample entries
- ⏰ How the 30-day filing clock works and what to do if it has already started running
- 📎 Which attachments, transcripts, and proofs of service must travel with the form
- ⚖️ How to draft “specific objections” in Item 15 so the Board reaches your issues
- 🔁 How RB-89 differs from RB-89.1 (rebuttal) and RB-89.2 (reconsideration/full Board)
What Form RB-89 Is and Who Must File It
Form RB-89 is the official Application for Board Review of a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge Decision. It is the only document the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board will accept as a request for administrative appeal of a WCLJ’s reserved decision or notice of decision. The form is published by the Board itself, and the most recent revision date (printed in the lower-left corner) should always match the version posted on the Board’s forms library. Filing an older version is grounds for denial under the strict-compliance rule the Board adopted in Subject Number 046-940.
Any party to a workers’ compensation claim may file RB-89. That includes the injured worker (claimant), the employer, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, a self-insured employer, the Special Funds Conservation Committee, and the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. Each filer category faces the same 30-day deadline and the same formatting rules, but the supporting brief and arguments differ based on the position taken below.
Attorneys and licensed representatives must file RB-89 through OnBoard, the Board’s electronic case-management system. Unrepresented claimants and employers can use the web upload portal, mail, or hand delivery, but the Board strongly prefers electronic filing because paper filings add days of mailroom processing that can push a borderline appeal past the deadline.
The plain-English reason this form exists is simple: trial-level decisions in workers’ comp are made by a single judge after a short hearing, and the Legislature wanted parties to have one guaranteed shot at an independent panel review before any court appeal. The consequence of skipping RB-89 is severe — without it, the WCLJ decision becomes final, and the Appellate Division, Third Department will not entertain a direct appeal under WCL §23.
A common misconception is that filing RB-89 stays the WCLJ’s award. It does not. Indemnity benefits, medical authorizations, and penalties continue to run during Board review unless the Board issues an interlocutory order or the parties agree otherwise.
Before You Start: Documents and Information You Need
Gather everything before you open the form. A missing transcript page or an unsigned proof of service will sink an otherwise strong appeal. The Board’s review staff matches every item on RB-89 to the case file, and any gap triggers a denial letter that does not pause the 30-day clock.
Use this pre-filing checklist to assemble your packet:
- The WCB case number (also called the claim number), because the form is indexed by case and a wrong number routes the appeal into the void.
- The WCIRB carrier code or self-insured employer number, because the Board cross-references the carrier of record and a mismatch suggests the wrong party is appealing.
- The date of the WCLJ filed decision you are appealing, because the 30-day deadline runs from that filed date, not the hearing date.
- A certified or downloaded copy of the WCLJ decision, because Item references must quote it precisely.
- The hearing transcript (or a request for one through eCase) for every hearing you cite, because the Board will not search the record for you.
- The medical reports, C-4 series forms, IME reports, and depositions you intend to cite, because Item 15 must point to specific documents in the Board file.
- The names, addresses, and email addresses of every party and representative on the case, because RB-89 requires proof of service on all of them.
- The legal brief or memorandum of law in support of your appeal, capped at 15 pages double-spaced under the Board’s page-limit rule.
- A signed and dated proof of service showing how each party received the application and brief.
- Your OnBoard credentials or web upload login, because the Board no longer accepts faxed RB-89 filings.
Missing any one of these items will not pause the 30-day deadline, and the Board has held in multiple Panel decisions that “I was still gathering documents” is not a valid excuse for late filing.
Where to Get the Form and How to Access It
Download the current RB-89 from the Board’s official forms page or directly from the RB-89 PDF link. The fillable PDF is the only version the Board accepts; screenshots, retyped copies, and third-party reproductions are rejected. The revision date appears in the lower-left corner, and you should confirm it matches the version on the Board’s site the morning you file.
Attorneys and licensed representatives access the form through OnBoard, which auto-populates the case number, parties, and carrier information from the existing electronic case file. Unrepresented filers can either complete the PDF and upload it through the Board’s web upload portal or print and mail it to the Board’s central office in Schenectady.
A nuance worth flagging: the Board updated RB-89 in 2024 to add a mandatory certification regarding the 15-page brief limit and the prohibition on raising new issues not litigated below. If you use a pre-2024 version, the Board will reject your filing under Subject Number 046-1058.
The most common access mistake is downloading the form, saving it locally, and reusing it months later without re-checking the revision date. The consequence is a procedurally defective filing and, often, a missed deadline.
A misconception filers carry is that any law-firm form library version of RB-89 is “good enough.” It is not. Only the version currently posted by the Board is accepted, and the Board updates the form without broad notice.
Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out Form RB-89 Line by Line
Form RB-89 has a header section, fifteen numbered items, a certification block, and a signature line. Complete each item in order. Skipping a numbered item, even one that seems irrelevant, is the single most common reason the Board denies review without reaching the merits, under the strict-compliance standard recapped in Matter of Sanchez and other Panel decisions.
Item 1: WCB Case Number
The field asks for the seven- or eight-digit case number assigned by the Workers’ Compensation Board when the claim was first indexed. Enter the number exactly as it appears on the WCLJ decision you are appealing, including any leading zeros and the “G-” or “0” prefix the Board uses for older claims. For example, Maria Lopez writes G2456789 in Item 1 because that is the case number printed at the top of her notice of decision.
A nuance arises when a claimant has multiple claims with the same employer or carrier. Each claim has its own case number, and a single RB-89 covers only one case; consolidated appeals require a separate RB-89 per case number with cross-references in Item 15.
The most common mistake here is transposing two digits or substituting the carrier file number for the WCB case number. The direct consequence is that the appeal lands in the wrong electronic folder, never reaches a reviewer, and is deemed not filed when the 30 days run out.
A misconception is that the Board will “figure out” the right case if you put the claimant’s name correctly. The Board’s intake is automated by case number, and a wrong number is a procedural denial.
Item 2: Date of Filed Decision Being Appealed
This field asks for the date the WCLJ’s reserved decision or notice of decision was filed — meaning the date stamped on the document by the Board, not the date of the hearing and not the date you received it in the mail. Enter the date in MM/DD/YYYY format. For example, Carlos Rivera writes 04/12/2026 because that is the filed date stamped on the upper-right corner of his decision.
The nuance most filers miss is the difference between the hearing date, the issuance date, and the filed date. Only the filed date starts the 30-day clock under 12 NYCRR §300.13(b)(3).
The most common mistake is using the hearing date, which is typically two to four weeks earlier than the filed date. The consequence can be the opposite of what you fear — filers sometimes assume their deadline has already passed and abandon a meritorious appeal that was actually still timely.
A misconception is that the postmark date of your mailed RB-89 controls. It does not; only the date the Board receives and date-stamps the form determines timeliness, with a narrow exception for OnBoard submissions, which are timestamped electronically.
Item 3: Appellant’s Name and Role
The field asks who is filing the appeal and in what capacity. Check the box for Claimant, Employer, Carrier, Special Funds, Uninsured Employers’ Fund, or Other, and type the full legal name of the party. For example, Janet Park, the injured worker, checks “Claimant” and types Janet Park in the name line.
A nuance applies when an attorney signs on the appellant’s behalf. The party name remains the client’s; the attorney’s name and bar registration number go in the representative block lower on the form.
A common mistake is checking Employer when the carrier is actually the appellant, or vice versa. The consequence is that the wrong party of record is listed as the appellant, and the Board may treat the opposing party’s response as uncontested on certain issues.
A misconception is that “Claimant” and “Injured Worker” are interchangeable labels on this form. The form uses Claimant, and that is the box to check even if the claim arises from a fatal injury and the actual filer is the surviving spouse.
Item 4: Appellant’s Address and Contact Information
This field asks for the appellant’s street address, city, state, ZIP code, telephone number, and email address. Use the address where the appellant currently receives mail, not the address listed on the underlying claim if it has changed. For example, Marcus Bell writes 142 Lenox Avenue, Apt 6B, New York, NY 10026, with phone 212-555-0143 and email marcus.bell@email.com.
The nuance for represented parties is that the attorney’s office address goes in the representative block (Item 5), not here, even if the attorney handles all correspondence.
The common mistake is using a P.O. box without also providing a physical address for service. The consequence is that opposing parties cannot complete personal service if required by the Board, and your proof-of-service block becomes defective.
A misconception is that an email address is optional. It is not. The Board uses email to send acknowledgments and Panel decisions, and an absent or invalid email leads to missed deadlines on the rebuttal (RB-89.1) and any subsequent reconsideration application.
Item 5: Representative Information
This field asks for the name, address, telephone number, bar registration number (for attorneys), and license number (for licensed representatives) of the person filing on behalf of the appellant. Enter the information in the same format as Item 4, plus the OCA attorney registration number for lawyers. For example, Attorney Priya Shah writes her firm address, phone, email, and her ten-digit OCA registration number 4567890.
A nuance: licensed representatives who are not attorneys must list their Board-issued representative license number, which is different from the OCA number.
The common mistake is leaving this field blank when an attorney is in fact representing the appellant, because the appellant signed the form personally. The consequence is that the Board treats the appellant as pro se, sends notices only to the claimant, and does not copy counsel on the Panel decision.
A misconception is that listing the firm name alone is sufficient. The Board requires the individual representative’s name, because only natural persons can sign and be bound by the certification block.
Item 6: Opposing Party Information
The field asks you to identify every opposing party in the case and their representatives, including names, addresses, and email addresses. List each party on a separate line, and attach a continuation sheet if needed. For example, Janet Park lists ABC Logistics Inc., 500 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, and its carrier Liberty Mutual Insurance, plus their counsel Jones & Associates.
The nuance is that the Special Funds Conservation Committee and the Uninsured Employers’ Fund count as separate parties when they are involved, and each requires its own line and proof of service.
The common mistake is listing only the carrier and forgetting the employer, or vice versa. The consequence is incomplete service of process, and the Board may reject the application or, worse, vacate any Panel decision later if a party shows it was not served.
A misconception is that listing the carrier covers the employer. It does not. Employer and carrier are separate legal parties under WCL §10, and each must be served independently.
Item 7: Carrier Code or Self-Insured Employer Number
This field asks for the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board (NYCIRB) carrier code or the Board-assigned self-insured employer number. Enter the five- or seven-digit code exactly as it appears on the carrier’s filings in eCase. For example, the carrier’s NYCIRB code 26433 goes in this box for State Insurance Fund cases.
A nuance applies when the carrier has changed during the life of the claim — for instance, where a self-insured trust dissolved and coverage shifted to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. List the carrier of record as of the WCLJ decision date.
The common mistake is using the policy number instead of the carrier code. The consequence is mis-routing in the Board’s electronic system and a delay in the carrier receiving the appeal packet.
A misconception is that this field is optional for claimant appeals. It is not. The Board uses the carrier code to deliver electronic notice to the right adjuster, and an empty box delays service.
Item 8: Date of Accident or Date of Disablement
The field asks for the date of the work-related accident or, for occupational disease and repetitive trauma claims, the date of disablement as established by the WCLJ. Enter the date in MM/DD/YYYY format. For example, Aisha Thompson writes 07/22/2024 because that is the established date of accident in her established claim.
A nuance arises in occupational disease claims under WCL §39 and §44, where the date of disablement may be the last day worked, the date of first lost time, or the date the claimant first knew of the disease’s work relationship. Use the date the WCLJ adopted in the decision under appeal.
The common mistake is using the date of the medical report or the date the claim was filed. The consequence is that the Board sees what looks like a different claim, and the form may be returned for correction outside the 30-day window.
A misconception is that this date does not matter for the appeal. It anchors statute-of-limitations and notice issues under WCL §18 and §28, which often appear in Item 15 objections.
Item 9: District Office
This field asks which Workers’ Compensation Board district office handled the underlying hearings. Check the box for the relevant district — Albany, Binghamton, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Hauppauge, Hempstead, Manhattan, Peekskill, Queens, Rochester, Statewide, Syracuse, or White Plains. For example, a Bronx claim heard at 215 West 125th Street has the Manhattan box checked.
The nuance is that virtual hearings during and after the pandemic have blurred district assignments. Use the district office printed at the top of the WCLJ decision, not the office closest to the claimant’s home.
The common mistake is selecting the district by geography rather than by case assignment. The consequence is internal routing delay, although it rarely defeats the appeal outright.
A misconception is that the Statewide box is a safe default. Statewide is reserved for specific dockets and should be used only when the WCLJ decision is captioned that way.
Item 10: Type of Decision Being Appealed
The field asks whether you are appealing a Notice of Decision, a Reserved Decision, a Memorandum of Decision, or Other. Check the box that matches the document and identify it by date. For example, Carlos Rivera checks Reserved Decision filed 04/12/2026 because the WCLJ took the case under advisement after the hearing.
A nuance: pre-hearing conference orders under 12 NYCRR §300.38 follow a different appellate route and are generally not the subject of RB-89.
The common mistake is checking Notice of Decision when the document is actually a reserved decision, or vice versa. The consequence is administrative confusion, although it usually does not defeat the appeal if the date is correct.
A misconception is that interlocutory rulings made on the record at a hearing can be appealed via RB-89. They cannot until they are reduced to a filed decision.
Item 11: Issues Decided Below
This field asks you to list each issue the WCLJ ruled on in the decision under appeal. List them as they appear in the decision — for example, causal relationship for the lumbar spine, average weekly wage, attachment to the labor market, and apportionment under WCL §15(7).
A nuance is that listing an issue here does not mean you are appealing it. Item 15 narrows the appeal to specific objections; Item 11 simply maps the decision.
The common mistake is paraphrasing the issues instead of quoting the decision. The consequence is that the Board reviewer cannot tie your objections to specific findings, which weakens the appeal even if it is procedurally accepted.
A misconception is that broad labels like “the whole decision” suffice. They do not. Each issue must be itemized.
Item 12: Was a Timely Request for Further Action Filed?
The field asks whether the appellant filed a timely request for further development of the record or for further action below before the WCLJ closed proofs. Check Yes or No. For example, Marcus Bell checks “Yes” because he requested a deposition of the IME doctor that was denied.
A nuance under 12 NYCRR §300.13(b)(2)(iv) is that a “No” answer paired with an Item 15 objection that the record was incomplete will draw a swift denial — the Board treats failure to request development below as waiver.
The common mistake is checking Yes without identifying where in the transcript the request was made. The consequence is that the Board may treat the response as unsupported.
A misconception is that a generic objection at the hearing preserves a development issue. It does not; specific requests for production, depositions, or further IMEs must be on the record.
Item 13: Page Limit Certification
This 2024-added field asks the appellant or representative to certify that the attached brief does not exceed 15 pages, double-spaced, in 12-point font, with one-inch margins, under Subject Number 046-1058. Check the certification box. For example, Attorney Priya Shah checks the box after confirming her brief is 14 pages.
A nuance: tables of contents, tables of authorities, and signature blocks count toward the 15 pages, although purely evidentiary attachments do not.
The common mistake is checking the box without actually counting pages, or relying on single-spaced formatting. The consequence is denial of the application as procedurally defective.
A misconception is that a request for a page-limit waiver can be made within RB-89. It cannot; waivers must be requested in advance and are granted sparingly.
Item 14: New Issues Certification
This field asks the appellant to certify that the appeal does not raise issues that were not first raised before the WCLJ. Check the certification box. For example, Carlos Rivera checks the box because every issue in his Item 15 list was litigated at the hearing.
A nuance: the Board strictly enforces this rule under Matter of Buckner v. Buckner and similar Panel decisions. Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are deemed waived even if they are legally correct.
The common mistake is sneaking in a new argument that “should have been obvious” at the hearing. The consequence is waiver and, sometimes, sanctions for frivolous appeal under 12 NYCRR §300.13(b)(4)(iii).
A misconception is that new medical evidence post-hearing can be added through RB-89. It cannot; new evidence requires a separate application under WCL §123 or a request for further development.
Item 15: Specific Objections and Grounds for Review
This is the substantive heart of the form. The field asks you to state each specific objection to the WCLJ decision, the legal or factual ground for the objection, and the relief requested. List each objection separately and tie it to the record. For example, Janet Park writes “Objection 1: WCLJ erred in finding no causal relationship for the cervical spine, contrary to the opinion of Dr. Chen (C-4.2 filed 02/10/2026, pp. 3-4) and the unrebutted testimony of claimant (Tr. 03/05/2026, pp. 18-22)”.
A nuance: general statements like “the decision was against the weight of the evidence” are insufficient under the Board’s strict-objection rule. Each objection must identify the specific finding, the evidence that contradicts it, and the legal standard the WCLJ allegedly misapplied.
The common mistake is writing a narrative argument instead of itemized objections. The consequence is that the Board may decline review of unidentified issues even if the brief discusses them.
A misconception is that the brief can substitute for Item 15. It cannot. The objections must be in the form itself; the brief expands on them.
Certification and Signature Block
The certification block requires the appellant or representative to sign under penalty of perjury that the information in the application is true, that all required parties have been served, and that the page-limit and new-issues certifications are accurate. Sign and date the form in MM/DD/YYYY format. For example, Attorney Priya Shah signs electronically through OnBoard on 05/02/2026.
A nuance: an unsigned RB-89 is a nullity. The Board does not “cure” the defect by emailing for a signature.
The common mistake is leaving the signature line blank because the form was completed by a paralegal. The consequence is automatic denial.
A misconception is that an electronic signature is not valid. It is; OnBoard’s electronic signature satisfies WCL §110-a and the Board’s e-filing rules.
Proof of Service Block
The proof-of-service block requires the filer to certify the date and method of service on every opposing party and representative listed in Item 6. Check the method (mail, personal delivery, email with consent, OnBoard) and list the date. For example, Aisha Thompson certifies service by first-class mail on 05/02/2026 on both the employer and the carrier.
A nuance: email service is valid only with the recipient’s prior written consent or through OnBoard’s built-in service feature.
The common mistake is serving the carrier but not the employer (or vice versa). The consequence is a defective filing that the Board may deny.
A misconception is that uploading to OnBoard automatically serves all parties. It serves represented parties electronically, but pro se parties still need separate mail service.
Three Filled-Out Examples Using Real Scenarios
Scenario 1: Janet Park, Claimant Appealing Denial of Causal Relationship
| Form Section | What Janet Enters |
|---|---|
| Item 1 – WCB Case Number | G2456789 |
| Item 2 – Filed Decision Date | 04/12/2026 |
| Item 3 – Appellant Role | Checks Claimant; types Janet Park |
| Item 4 – Appellant Address | 88 Bedford Park Blvd, Bronx, NY 10468, 718-555-0177 |
| Item 5 – Representative | Attorney Priya Shah, OCA #4567890 |
| Item 8 – Date of Accident | 11/15/2025 |
| Item 10 – Type of Decision | Checks Reserved Decision |
| Item 11 – Issues Decided | Causal relationship – cervical and lumbar spine |
| Item 13 – Page Limit Cert | Checks box; brief is 14 pages |
| Item 15 – Specific Objections | WCLJ erred in rejecting Dr. Chen’s C-4.2 opinion; record supports causal relationship |
| Signature | Electronic signature 05/02/2026 |
Scenario 2: Liberty Mutual, Carrier Appealing PPD Classification
| Form Section | What the Carrier Enters |
|---|---|
| Item 1 – WCB Case Number | G3398210 |
| Item 2 – Filed Decision Date | 04/30/2026 |
| Item 3 – Appellant Role | Checks Carrier; types Liberty Mutual Insurance |
| Item 6 – Opposing Parties | Claimant Marcus Bell; counsel Rodriguez Law PLLC |
| Item 7 – Carrier Code | NYCIRB 26433 |
| Item 8 – Date of Accident | 03/04/2023 |
| Item 11 – Issues Decided | PPD classification; LWEC of 65% |
| Item 12 – Timely Further Action | Checks Yes; cites request for IME deposition (Tr. 04/02/2026, p. 31) |
| Item 14 – New Issues Cert | Box checked |
| Item 15 – Specific Objections | LWEC finding unsupported by vocational evidence; functional capacity report ignored |
| Signature | Defense counsel signature, 05/15/2026 |
Scenario 3: Aisha Thompson, Claimant Appealing Average Weekly Wage
| Form Section | What Aisha Enters |
|---|---|
| Item 1 – WCB Case Number | G2901145 |
| Item 2 – Filed Decision Date | 05/01/2026 |
| Item 3 – Appellant Role | Checks Claimant; types Aisha Thompson |
| Item 4 – Appellant Address | 54 Halsey Street, Brooklyn, NY 11216 |
| Item 8 – Date of Accident | 07/22/2024 |
| Item 9 – District Office | Checks Brooklyn |
| Item 11 – Issues Decided | Average weekly wage under WCL §14(2) |
| Item 13 – Page Limit Cert | Box checked; brief 9 pages |
| Item 15 – Specific Objections | AWW calculated using only base wages; tips and overtime improperly excluded |
| Proof of Service | Mailed to employer and carrier 05/20/2026 |
| Signature | Aisha Thompson pro se, 05/20/2026 |
How to File the Completed Form
The Board accepts RB-89 through three channels, and each has its own steps, fees, and proof-of-filing methods. Choose the channel that matches your representation status and your comfort with electronic systems.
OnBoard (mandatory for licensed representatives). Log in at OnBoard using your Board-issued credentials, open the case, select File RB-89, upload the PDF and the brief, and submit. There is no filing fee. The system timestamps the submission and produces a confirmation receipt that should be saved as your proof of filing. Processing time for acknowledgment is typically one to three business days.
Web Upload (available to pro se filers and small employers). Use the web upload portal, select Application for Review (RB-89) as the document type, enter the case number, and upload the completed PDF plus brief and proof of service. There is no fee. The portal generates a confirmation number. Processing time for acknowledgment is two to five business days.
Mail or Hand Delivery. Mail the completed RB-89, brief, and proof of service to the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board, Office of General Counsel, 328 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12305. Hand delivery is accepted at the same address during business hours. There is no fee, and the only accepted payment method for any related fees (such as transcript requests) is check or money order payable to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Allow seven to ten business days for the Board to date-stamp and acknowledge the filing. Always send by certified mail with return receipt as your proof of filing.
Fax is no longer accepted under the Board’s 2024 e-filing modernization, despite older instructions still circulating in third-party guides.
What Happens After You File
Once RB-89 is filed and accepted, the Board issues an acknowledgment letter through eCase and assigns the case to its Administrative Review Division. The opposing party then has 30 days from receipt to file a rebuttal on Form RB-89.1, and the appellant generally has no right to a sur-reply.
A three-member Board Panel reviews the record, the WCLJ decision, the RB-89 and brief, and any rebuttal. The Panel issues a written decision that either affirms, modifies, rescinds and restores to the calendar, or reverses the WCLJ decision. The Panel’s median processing time is roughly nine to twelve months, although complex classification or §15(8) cases can take longer.
If the Panel decision is unanimous, it is final at the Board level subject only to a discretionary application for reconsideration or full Board review on Form RB-89.2, which must be filed within 30 days. If the Panel decision is non-unanimous (a 2-1 split), the dissenting party has a statutory right to mandatory full Board review, requested through RB-89.2 as well.
After exhausting Board review, a party may appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department under WCL §23 within 30 days of the Board’s final decision.
Mistakes to Avoid When Filling Out the Form
These ten errors generate the largest share of procedural denials, based on a review of recent Panel decisions and the Board’s published guidance.
- Filing more than 30 days after the WCLJ decision was filed. The application is denied as untimely, with no extension possible.
- Using a pre-2024 version of RB-89. The form is rejected for failing to include the page-limit and new-issues certifications.
- Skipping Item 12 about prior requests for further action. The Board treats unanswered procedural fields as defective.
- Writing general objections in Item 15. Vague objections do not preserve issues for review.
- Exceeding the 15-page brief limit. The application is denied without consideration of the merits.
- Raising a new issue not litigated below. That issue is waived, and the rest of the appeal may be questioned for credibility.
- Failing to serve the employer or the carrier. Defective service can void the entire appeal.
- Forgetting to sign the form. An unsigned RB-89 is a nullity, even if filed electronically.
- Misstating the case number or date of accident. Mis-routing can cause the appeal to miss its deadline before reaching a reviewer.
- Citing transcript pages without ordering the transcript. The Board will not retrieve transcripts for you; cited pages must exist in the record.
Do’s and Don’ts
Do’s:
- Do confirm the WCLJ decision filed date in eCase before starting the clock, because the date stamped on the document controls.
- Do download a fresh copy of RB-89 the day you file, because the Board updates the form without broad notice.
- Do itemize objections in Item 15 with record cites, because vague objections risk denial.
- Do serve every party and representative, because incomplete service voids the appeal.
- Do save the OnBoard or web upload confirmation, because it is your only proof of timely filing.
- Do double-check the page count and certification boxes, because the 15-page rule is enforced strictly.
Don’ts:
- Don’t wait until day 30 to file, because last-minute technical issues will not toll the deadline.
- Don’t raise new issues not litigated below, because they are waived under 12 NYCRR §300.13.
- Don’t paraphrase field labels or skip “irrelevant” boxes, because every numbered item must be completed.
- Don’t fax the form, because fax filings are no longer accepted.
- Don’t rely on the brief to do Item 15’s work, because the objections must be in the form itself.
- Don’t assume RB-89 stays the WCLJ award, because benefits and obligations continue during review.
Pros and Cons of Filing on Your Own vs. With Help
Pros of filing pro se:
- No legal fees, which matters when a claimant is already without indemnity benefits.
- Direct control over the issues raised and the language used.
- Faster decision-making about whether to file, because no scheduling with counsel is needed.
- Familiarity with the underlying facts, which can produce a more accurate Item 15.
- The Board’s claimant-friendly procedural rules under WCL §21 and §22 give some leeway to unrepresented parties on close procedural calls.
Cons of filing pro se:
- The strict-compliance rule is unforgiving, and procedural defects cause more denials than weak merits.
- Drafting specific objections that survive Board scrutiny is difficult without practice.
- The 15-page brief must engage with case law and Board Panel decisions.
- Service rules and proof-of-service formalities trip up many pro se filers.
- The opposing carrier almost always has experienced counsel responding via RB-89.1.
FAQs
Is RB-89 the only way to appeal a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decision in New York?
Yes. RB-89 is the exclusive method for administrative appeal of a WCLJ decision to a Board Panel under WCL §23 and 12 NYCRR §300.13.
Can I file RB-89 after the 30-day deadline?
No. The 30-day deadline is strict, and the Board lacks authority to extend it absent very narrow exceptions for Board-caused delay or lack of proper notice.
Do I write my case number or my Social Security number in Item 1?
No. Item 1 takes the Workers’ Compensation Board case number printed on the WCLJ decision, not the claimant’s Social Security number.
Should the date in Item 2 be the hearing date or the filed decision date?
No, it is not the hearing date. Item 2 takes the date the WCLJ’s decision was filed by the Board, which controls the 30-day clock.
Do I check “Claimant” in Item 3 if I am the surviving spouse on a death claim?
Yes. The surviving spouse pursuing a death claim under WCL §16 checks the Claimant box and enters the spouse’s full legal name.
Can I list “the entire decision” in Item 15 instead of itemized objections?
No. Item 15 requires specific objections tied to particular findings and record citations; broad statements are insufficient.
Is there a filing fee for RB-89?
No. The Workers’ Compensation Board does not charge a fee to file RB-89 through OnBoard, web upload, mail, or hand delivery.
Can I fax RB-89 to the Board?
No. The Board phased out fax filings in 2024; only OnBoard, web upload, mail, and hand delivery are accepted.
Does filing RB-89 stop the WCLJ’s award from being paid?
No. Indemnity benefits, medical authorizations, and penalties continue during Board review unless the Board issues an interlocutory stay.
Can I attach new medical evidence to RB-89?
No. New evidence cannot be introduced through RB-89; it requires a separate application under WCL §123 or a request to develop the record.
What happens if I forget to serve the employer but I served the carrier?
No, that is not adequate service. Employer and carrier are separate parties, and both must be served for the application to be valid.
Can I appeal a Board Panel decision after RB-89?
Yes. A party may file Form RB-89.2 for reconsideration or full Board review within 30 days, and may then appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department under WCL §23.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out New York Notice of Appeal (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form C-4 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form C-8/8.6 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California WCAB Petition for Reconsideration + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form WCB C-300.5 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form WCB RB-89.1 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California WCAB DWC-AD 1 (w/Examples) + FAQs