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. 2021-06-0175
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2022

Burns-Herrera, Melanie v. State Industries, LLC

Melanie Burns-Herrera, an employee, sought an order compelling her employer, State Industries, to authorize surgery for adhesive capsulitis in her right shoulder. This condition developed after an initial work-related surgery performed by Dr. Jason Haslam, who later deemed no further treatment necessary. However, a second-opinion physician, Dr. Matthew Willis, recommended surgery, stating that conservative measures had failed and the capsulitis directly resulted from the prior surgery. Weighing the competing medical opinions and Ms. Burns-Herrera's credible testimony about her functional limitations, the Court found Dr. Willis's opinion more persuasive. Consequently, the Court granted the employee's request, ordering State Industries to authorize the recommended surgery, either by Dr. Haslam if willing, or by a new panel of orthopedic surgeons.

Shoulder InjuryAdhesive CapsulitisSurgery AuthorizationMedical Necessity DisputeTreating Physician OpinionSecond Medical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeryExpedited Hearing OrderExpert Medical TestimonyEmployee Credibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkins v. New York Power Authority

The claimant, a lineman, sustained a shoulder injury in July 2007. Despite a diagnosis of biceps tendonitis and adhesive capsulitis, he declined prescribed medication and discontinued physical therapy, not missing work. He subsequently applied for workers’ compensation benefits based on a 45% schedule loss of use. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, citing the claimant's unreasonable refusal of treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the refusal reasonable. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence given the unanimous medical opinion that treatment was needed and claimant's refusal was unreasonable, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Shoulder InjuryBiceps TendonitisAdhesive CapsulitisSchedule Loss of UseRefusal of Medical TreatmentUnreasonable RefusalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campito v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying her claim for consequential right shoulder injury benefits. In 2008, the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her neck, left elbow, and upper back. She later sought to amend her claim to include a consequential right shoulder injury, attributing it to overuse caused by her established left arm injury. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no competent medical evidence to support a causal link. An independent medical examiner, James McGowan, attributed the right shoulder issues to adhesive capsulitis related to her diabetic condition, rather than the work accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicting medical opinions falls within the Board’s exclusive authority and their determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryOveruse InjuryMedical EvidenceCausationAdhesive CapsulitisDiabetesConflicting Medical OpinionsSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. 2017-03-0290
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Brown, Benjamin v. Solideal USA, Inc.

Benjamin Brown, a welder for Solideal USA, Inc., experienced left shoulder pain in February 2015 after lifting heavy materials. After delays in obtaining authorized treatment, he saw Dr. Brent Webb and later Dr. G. B. Holloway. Dr. Holloway diagnosed adhesive capsulitis and early arthritic changes, concluding the condition was not primarily work-related. Mr. Brown later sought treatment from Dr. Paul Brady, who performed surgery in March 2017. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied Mr. Brown's claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, finding he failed to prove his claim was timely filed and that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, specifically lacking medical evidence to rebut the authorized treating physician's opinion. Solideal was referred to the Penalty Unit for investigation due to a delay in providing medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingShoulder InjuryStatute of LimitationsCausationBurden of ProofMedical EvidenceAuthorized Treating PhysicianDenial of BenefitsPenalty Unit Referral
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferguson v. Callanan Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Eric Ferguson, an employee of the Town of the Town of Colonie, was injured while working at defendant's facility. On November 30, 1992, he was directed to manually spray the interior of a dump truck with a solution to prevent asphalt adhesion because defendant's automated spray station was inoperable. Plaintiff slipped and fell while climbing down from the truck after performing the task. He sued the defendant, arguing that the breakdown of the spray facility was the cause of his injuries. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the inoperable spray mechanism merely furnished the occasion for the injuries and did not proximately cause them.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityProximate CauseNegligenceAppellate ReviewSlip and FallWorkplace InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityLack of CausationAffirmed Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King & Mize Lumber Co. v. Houk

Beecher Houk, an employee of the Lumber Company, filed a suit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after sustaining a fractured rib in February 1946. Despite returning to work after temporary total disability, he continued to experience increasing pain and weakness, eventually becoming unable to work. The Trial Judge found he had a permanent partial disability caused by adhesions from the injury. The Appellate Court affirmed that there was material evidence to support these findings of disability and causation. The court modified the lower judgment regarding the calculation of compensation, sustaining the third assignment of error to that extent, and remanded the case for the entry of a judgment conforming to its opinion.

Workmen's CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityRib FractureAdhesionsCausal ConnectionDisability CompensationWage DifferentialRemandTennessee LawUnskilled Laborer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. MRM Investment Co.

The U.S. District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or compel arbitration in an employment dispute involving sexual harassment and constructive discharge. Plaintiff Ms. Cooper, an employee of KFC franchisee MRM Investment Co., alleged harassment by owner Terry Rogers. The defendants sought to enforce an arbitration agreement signed by Cooper as a condition of employment. The Court ruled the agreement was an unconscionable contract of adhesion, citing the unequal bargaining power and the plaintiff's inability to afford arbitration fees. It emphasized the societal importance of public courts for civil rights claims and the need to protect substantive employee rights.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActUnconscionabilityContract of AdhesionFederal Arbitration ActMandatory Arbitration
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. American Appliance Manufacturing Corp.

Adam E. Suarez died from burns caused by flammable adhesive glue ignited by a water heater pilot light. His survivors, led by Blanca Suarez, sued American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. and Mor-Flo Industries, Inc. for defective design and negligence. The jury found a design defect but attributed 90% negligence to Suarez, awarding $1,605,000 in damages. However, due to comparative negligence and a settlement credit, a take-nothing judgment was entered. The appellate court affirmed, finding the jury's damage award wasn't inadequate and ample evidence supported Suarez's 90% negligence, distinguishing the case from those involving latent defects.

Wrongful deathSurvival actionProduct liabilityDefective designNegligenceComparative negligenceTake-nothing judgmentAdhesive glue ignitionBurn injuriesDamages assessment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montalvo v. Mumpus Restorations, Inc.

The defendant, Mumpus Restorations, Inc., appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss causes of action alleging Labor Law § 200 violation and common-law negligence. The plaintiff, a porter, claimed personal injuries from a bucket of roofing adhesive falling from a roof, allegedly left by Mumpus's workers. The Supreme Court denied Mumpus's motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding liability. The appellate court affirmed this denial, concluding that evidence presented by the plaintiff and the potential applicability of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine created factual disputes that precluded summary judgment. Specifically, there was a question of fact as to whether access to the roof was exclusively controlled by Mumpus's employees.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturFalling ObjectRoof RepairsTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewLabor Law 200
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bynum v. Maplebear Inc.

Plaintiff Melody Bynum initiated an action against Instacart, alleging misclassification as an independent contractor and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Instacart moved to compel arbitration based on an independent contractor agreement. The court found the arbitration agreement valid, despite being a contract of adhesion, as Bynum had a reasonable opportunity to review and sign it. The court, however, severed the unconscionable venue, fee-splitting, and fee-shifting clauses of the agreement based on the parties' stipulation. It affirmed that FLSA claims are arbitrable and that the dispute falls within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, ultimately granting Instacart's motion to compel arbitration and staying the case.

ArbitrationEmployment ContractIndependent ContractorFLSANYLLWage ClaimsOvertime WagesUnconscionabilitySeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 15 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