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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2004

Claim of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 1, 2004. The Board's decision had ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The appellate court reviewed the claimant’s procedural arguments against the Board's decision, ultimately rejecting them as unfounded. Key points addressed included the authority of a reconstituted three-member Board to issue an amended decision reversing itself, which the court affirmed by referencing relevant Workers’ Compensation Law sections. Furthermore, the court dismissed the claimant's concerns regarding the staleness of reports from an independent medical examiner, clarifying that unlike treating physicians, independent medical examiners are not subject to statutory or regulatory requirements for routine progress reports. Consequently, the amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationBoard Decision AppealProcedural ArgumentsAmended DecisionIndependent Medical ExaminerMedical ReportsStalenessCompensable InjuryNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

Claim of Utley v. General Motors Corp.

In September 1987, the claimant, a machine operator, suffered a compensable back and right knee injury. After initially receiving benefits and being classified as permanently partially disabled, the claimant sought reclassification as totally industrially disabled in 1995, effective from 1989. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted this, attributing 70% to the compensable injury and 30% to other conditions. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently amended this decision, ruling that the total industrial disability was not subject to apportionment. The employer appealed this amended decision. The court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported the classification of total industrial disability and that apportionment was unwarranted because the compensable injuries, not other medical issues, rendered the claimant unable to work.

total industrial disabilityapportionmentback injuryknee injurypermanent partial disabilityworkers' compensation benefitsvocational rehabilitationmedical limitationswork historyeducational background
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns

Claimant's decedent, an executive director, was found dead at work from hypertensive and arteriosclerotic heart disease with diabetes. Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the death work-related, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, determining that claimant failed to provide medical evidence connecting the death to employment. The Board's amended decision again disallowed the claim, finding the employer successfully rebutted the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption with the death certificate. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, concluding claimant failed to present medical evidence to contradict the cause of death.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausationPresumption of CompensabilityHypertensive Heart DiseaseArteriosclerotic Heart DiseaseDiabetes MellitusMedical EvidenceRebuttal of PresumptionAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ROBERT WYNNE vs. LUMEND, INC., HARFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY (KEMPER)

This case involved a clerical error in the caption of a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the April 4, 2011 decision nunc pro tunc. The amendment corrected the caption to include only the relevant case number, ADJ1003980 (SFO 0430815). No objections were received from the parties. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNunc Pro TuncReconsiderationAmend DecisionClerical ErrorCase CaptionAdministrative Law JudgePetition to ReassignTrial Level ProceedingsInsurer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zechmann v. Canisteo Volunteer Fire Department

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding death benefits. The claimant's decedent had applied for these benefits. The Board determined that the claim was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, making the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable for the payments under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision and amended decision, holding that the Special Fund is responsible for the payment of death benefits.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesAppealsStatutory InterpretationLiabilityClaimantDecedentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Paul Smith's College

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient record support for the finding. The court upheld the Board's determination, citing claimant's testimony that he was injured while cleaning a chainsaw on employer's equipment during slack time, a common practice. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, and issues of credibility were for the Board to resolve. The decision and amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentPersonal Use of EquipmentSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityBoard DeterminationAppellate ReviewInjury during workCommon Practice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1988

Claim of Baker v. Three Village Central School District

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the claimant had a causally related disability after a head injury sustained on September 15, 1982. The employer contested the finding of disability subsequent to November 1, 1982, arguing that a psychologist's testimony should not have been considered on the issue of causal relationship because the psychologist was not a physician. The Board, however, based its decision on a comprehensive review of the record, including reports and testimony from a psychiatrist, as well as the testimony of the claimant and the psychologist. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding ample expert medical evidence supporting the disability and concluding that the psychologist's testimony was relevant to the length of the disability. The court found no irrationality in the Board's conclusion and no basis to disturb the decision.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryDisabilityCausal RelationshipPsychiatric EvaluationNeuropsychologyExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24,169 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