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. 2025 NYSlipOp 01409 [236 AD3d 1151]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Matter of Hanson v. General Elec. Co.

Claimant Donna Hanson sought workers' compensation death benefits for her spouse, a field service technician, who died from an acute aortic dissection after collapsing at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) later reversed, finding a lack of causally-related medical evidence after precluding claimant's expert reports due to procedural issues. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, citing inconsistencies and reliance on an inaccurate reading of the record regarding the preclusion of claimant's medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipPresumption of CompensabilityAortic DissectionHypertensionMedical EvidenceReport PreclusionAdministrative ReviewAdmissibility of Evidence
References
9
Case No. E2019-01211-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2020

Travis Kanipe v. Pragnesh Patel MD

Travis Kanipe sued Dr. Pragnesh Patel for healthcare liability following his mother, Sandra Kanipe's, death from an undiagnosed aortic dissection. After an initial jury verdict favored Dr. Patel, the Trial Court granted Kanipe a new trial, citing Dr. Patel's impermissible blame-shifting to non-party nurses without pleading comparative fault. A second trial resulted in a verdict for Mr. Kanipe. Dr. Patel appealed, challenging the new trial order, the admission of evidence regarding his voluntary surrender of hospital privileges, and the Trial Court's role as the thirteenth juror. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial, admitting the contested evidence with a limiting instruction, and concluding that the Trial Court properly exercised its role as the thirteenth juror.

Healthcare liabilityMedical negligenceComparative faultBlame-shiftingNew trial motionPeer review privilegeOriginal source exceptionExpert witness testimonyJury verdictAppellate review
References
15
Case No. CV-23-1425
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Harold Hanson (dec'd) Donna Hanson

The Appellate Division reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to Donna Hanson for her deceased husband, Harold Hanson. Harold, a field service technician for General Electric, died from an acute aortic dissection, which claimant alleged was work-related. The case involved extensive procedural history, including a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially establishing the claim, followed by the Board's rescission and subsequent preclusion of claimant's medical evidence, specifically reports from Dr. Stern and Dr. Basri. The WCLJ ultimately disallowed the claim due to a lack of medical evidence, a decision affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division found the Board's reasoning for precluding evidence inconsistent with its assertion that claimant had "ample opportunity" to submit proof, and also noted the Board's reliance on an inaccurate reading of the record, necessitating a remittal for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits ClaimCausal RelationshipAortic DissectionHypertensionMedical Report AdmissibilityProcedural ErrorsPresumption of CompensabilityBurden ShiftingAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 1996

In re the Claim of Keser v. New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center

This case addresses an appeal concerning a penalty imposed on a workers' compensation insurance carrier, the State Insurance Fund. The claimant, an employee of Elmira Psychiatric Center, made a claim for work-related high blood pressure and aortic dissection, receiving full wages through accrued leave. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits and directed the carrier to credit the State for the wages paid. However, the carrier failed to credit the State within the statutory 10-day period, resulting in a $3,836 penalty under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The carrier argued the penalty was inappropriate as it involved a bookkeeping credit rather than a direct payment to the claimant. Both the Workers' Compensation Board and the appellate court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the award's nature as compensation and the carrier's obligation remained, regardless of whether the payment was a credit to the State.

Workers’ CompensationPenaltyInsurance CarrierTimely PaymentCredit ReimbursementOccupational DiseaseAppellate DecisionWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationEmployer Responsibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Imbierowicz v. A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a judgment where the plaintiff, decedent's wife, brought a medical malpractice action after her husband died of cardiac arrest due to an undiagnosed aortic dissection. A jury initially found four defendants negligent: A.O. Fox Memorial Hospital, Benjamin Friedell, Capital Cardiology Associates, and John Gould, awarding significant damages. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support Fox's separate liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the jury charge regarding the Noseworthy rule was improper, potentially leading the jury to apply a lesser burden of proof on negligence. The court also ruled that the plaintiff's economic expert's testimony regarding lost earnings was speculative, lacking proper foundation. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, the motion to set aside the verdict for Fox's separate liability was granted, and the matter was remitted for a new trial on liability for Friedell, Gould, and Capital Cardiology Associates, as well as on damages.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathAortic DissectionFailure to DiagnoseNegligenceProximate CauseJury Charge ErrorNoseworthy RuleDamages CalculationPecuniary Loss
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupationally related disease contributed to the decedent's death. The decedent had bronchitis, an occupational disease, and also aortic stenosis, which caused his death. The key issue was whether the bronchitis contributed to his death by preventing cardiac surgery that would have prolonged his life. Expert medical testimony indicated that the bronchitis made him ineligible for the necessary aortic valve replacement surgery. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the bronchitis prevented life-prolonging surgery and affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBronchitisAortic StenosisMedical TestimonyCausationSurgical ContraindicationLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. VNO 0539404
Regular
Apr 03, 2008

DUANNA CARLISLE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a widow's claim for death benefits after her police officer husband died from a ruptured aortic aneurysm. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the weekly payment rate for death benefits. While affirming the total benefit amount and the date of injury, the Board amended the award to reflect a higher weekly payment rate of $840.00, consistent with current statutory guidelines for temporary total disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsRuptured Aortic AneurysmHypertensionPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryDate of DeathLabor Code Section 4702Temporary Total Disability Indemnity
References
2
Case No. ADJ4225526 (GOL 0092072)
Regular
Apr 20, 2017

JESUS ARROYO vs. JOHN CRAVENS PLASTERING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Jesus Arroyo's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Medical evidence from Dr. Markovitz established that Arroyo suffered a total and permanent disability resulting from industrial injuries, including an aortic aneurysm repair and subsequent strokes. The Board found Dr. Markovitz's opinions constituted substantial medical evidence, despite conflicting defense opinions, and affirmed that all necessary medical care and permanent disability were industrially caused.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus ArroyoJohn Cravens PlasteringState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerGerald Markovitzechocardiogramaortic root dilationexpanding aortic aneurysm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haines v. Kip Sheldon Trucking Co.

Claimant sustained a closed head injury and left carotid artery dissection, leading to a stroke, following a rollover motor vehicle accident during employment. His request for workers' compensation benefits was disputed by the employer, who argued the stroke predated the accident due to prior medical conditions. Conflicting medical opinions were presented regarding the stroke's causal relation to the accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the stroke to be causally related, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the stroke occurred after and as a result of the accident.

Workers' CompensationCausationStrokeMotor Vehicle AccidentCarotid DissectionMedical OpinionConflicting Medical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTrauma-Induced Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14 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