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. CV-24-2052
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

Claimant John Maini appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left foot, resulting from a ruptured Achilles tendon suffered in June 2022. The Board had modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 40% SLU. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board properly credited the opinion of the employer's consultant, whose interpretation of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically special consideration 6 regarding Achilles tendon ruptures, was consistent with the plain language of the guidelines and prior case law. The Court emphasized that range of motion deficits solely attributable to the Achilles tendon rupture could not be added to the SLU value assigned under special consideration 6, thereby supporting the 22.5% award.

schedule loss of useAchilles tendon ruptureworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionsubstantial evidencemaximum medical improvementrange of motionappellate revieworthopedic surgeonpermanent impairment
References
12
Case No. ADJ8182717, ADJ8253375, ADJ8253377
Regular
May 18, 2018

VICTOR MCGILL vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a judge's decision invalidating a chiropractic QME panel. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the judge's order was not a final determination. However, the Board granted removal, finding that an orthopedic QME panel was necessary for the applicant's foot and Achilles tendon injuries, as chiropractic was not the appropriate specialty. The decision rescinds the judge's order and returns the matter for further proceedings to obtain an additional orthopedic QME evaluation.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationQMEMedical DirectorChiropracticOrthopedic SurgeryPanelFindings of Fact and OrderMedical Unit
References
0
Case No. ADJ3835932
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

BEVERLY SMITH vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The applicant sought to reopen the case due to the retirement of an Agreed Medical Evaluator and alleged worsening of her condition. However, the Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause, as her claims were unsubstantiated, contradicted by surveillance evidence, and she did not exercise due diligence in seeking further evaluation. Consequently, the prior findings of industrial injury to the psyche and achilles tendon, with 24% permanent disability after apportionment, were upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheAchilles TendonOrthopedic Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Permanent DisabilityApportionmentPetition to Reopen
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antoinetta Corp. v. State

Claimant sought damages for personal injuries sustained on July 22, 1992, during the Empire State Games at the State University of New York at Albany. As a volunteer security force member, she fell into an unmarked steeplechase pit after the lights were turned off, severing her Achilles tendon. The State moved to dismiss, asserting workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy. The Court of Claims granted dismissal, finding claimant failed to plead the unavailability of workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board is the proper forum for determining whether an individual qualifies as an employee entitled to benefits.

Personal InjuryVolunteer WorkerExclusive RemedyMotion to DismissCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewAchilles Tendon InjuryPremises LiabilityState LiabilityEmpire State Games
References
7
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cline v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.

Plaintiff Cline sued his former employer, HEB Grocery Company, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA, violations of ERISA, breach of contract, and negligence after sustaining an Achilles tendon injury and subsequent termination. HEB moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, citing Cline's enrollment in its SMART Work Injury Benefit Plan, which required binding arbitration for employees opting for comprehensive coverage. The court granted HEB's motion, concluding that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable for Cline's negligence and most ERISA claims, in line with federal policy favoring arbitration. The court found no waiver by HEB and distinguished a prior case, Strawn v. AFC Enterprises, asserting HEB's plan was voluntary and not against public policy.

ArbitrationAge DiscriminationERISANegligenceEmployment LawContract LawWorkers' CompensationFederal Arbitration ActVoluntary Benefits PlanWaiver
References
19
Case No. 46 AD3d 1274
Regular Panel Decision

Stringer v. Musacchia

Plaintiff Eric Stringer was injured while building a shed for defendant Barbara Musacchia in exchange for a hunting trip invitation. He fell from a ladder, severing his Achilles tendon. Stringer sued under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to Stringer on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, considering him an 'employee.' However, the Appellate Division ruled Stringer was a volunteer and dismissed the § 240 (1) claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Stringer was a volunteer, not an employee, due to the informal, uncompensated arrangement lacking traditional employer-employee hallmarks. Thus, Stringer was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1)'s strict liability provisions.

Workers' CompensationLadder AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Volunteer StatusEmployee DefinitionStrict LiabilityConstruction InjuryPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilhelm v. Krogers

Michael Wilhelm, a case picker for Krogers, suffered a back and left hip injury in 2004, which he alleged was a direct result of a prior compensable Achilles tendon rupture in 1999, causing him to walk with a limp and develop Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD). The trial court initially awarded him 35% permanent partial disability. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed, deeming the injury idiopathic but compensable due to employment hazards. However, the higher court reversed, ruling that the 2004 injuries were not compensable as they did not arise out of employment (walking on a level, obstacle-free surface is not a special hazard). Furthermore, the court determined that the lump-sum settlement for the 1999 injury barred recovery for the subsequent complications, as they were a natural and probable result of the initial impairment and were contemplated at the time of settlement.

Workers' Compensation LawIdiopathic FallPre-existing Medical ConditionReflex Sympathetic DystrophyLump Sum Settlement AgreementCausal ConnectionArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentSpecial Hazard ExceptionSubsequent Injury Claims
References
25
Case No. 535725
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Odaliris Allen

Claimant sustained a work-related back and right knee injury in January 2000, establishing a workers' compensation claim. In 2008, liability for the claim transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Following a 2011 decision awarding benefits for a 37.5% schedule loss of use of the right leg, the claim was later amended in 2019 to include a consequential right ankle injury, and again in October 2021 for a consequential left achilles tendon injury. In December 2021, claimant sought additional indemnity awards, but the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied this request, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 123 precluded further awards due to the significant lapse of time since the injury and last compensation payment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this denial on administrative review. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the case was truly closed, and thus, the time limitations of Workers' Compensation Law § 123 were applicable, barring any additional indemnity benefits.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Special Fund for Reopened CasesIndemnity benefitsSchedule Loss of UseSLUConsequential injuryCase closureInformal reopeningTime limitationsAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. ADJ7834593
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GEORGE MOEN, III vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding a lien claim for a human tendon used in applicant's knee surgery. While the WCJ correctly found the services were necessary, neither party provided sufficient evidence to determine the reasonable value of the lien. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further development of the record. Lien claimant must prove its bill was not bundled and present evidence of a reasonable fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantAccess MediquipIndustrial InjuryKnee InjuryDeputy SheriffACL Tendon ReplacementPatella Tendon AllograftHuman TendonBundled Payment
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 36 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