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 McClam v. American Axle & Manufacturing

Claimant suffered two right shoulder injuries, one in 1997 while working for CF Motorfreight, and another in 2000 while working for American Axle & Manufacturing. After the second injury, American Axle sought apportionment of the workers' compensation award, which was initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but limited to medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that any apportionment should be deferred until a finding of permanency is made. American Axle appealed this deferral, arguing against the limitation of apportionment. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was an unappealable interlocutory decision, thus avoiding piecemeal review of workers’ compensation issues.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentShoulder InjurySchedule Loss of UseInterlocutory AppealDeferral of AwardPermanency FindingBoard ReviewMedical ExaminationEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2011

Claim of Wiess v. Mittal

Claimant, a steel worker from 1965 to 2008, filed an occupational hearing loss claim. His initial employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, was succeeded by Arcelor Mittal. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned the award based on the claimant's length of service with each employer. Bethlehem appealed, arguing Arcelor had not satisfied notice requirements and challenging the apportionment method. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Bethlehem had actual knowledge of the claimant's hearing loss through annual testing and credible testimony, and affirmed apportionment based on length of service. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no error in the Board's findings regarding actual knowledge or apportionment method.

Occupational hearing lossApportionmentActual knowledgeNotice requirementsEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-eeMedical evidenceBurden of proofAdverse inferenceIndustrial injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Claim of Lash v. General Motors Corp.

Claimant, an electrician, developed occupational hearing loss after working for General Motors Corporation and then American Axle. A claim was filed, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Board decision to apportion the award between the two employers. General Motors appealed, arguing American Axle failed to provide statutory notice for apportionment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that General Motors' actual knowledge of the claimant's preexisting hearing loss was equivalent to the required statutory notice under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-ee, thereby permitting the apportionment of the claim.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationApportionmentActual KnowledgeStatutory NoticeLast Employer LiabilityNew York LawEmployer ResponsibilityPreexisting ConditionHearing Test
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Montana v. Orion Bus Industries

Claimant, an assembler for a bus manufacturer, injured his back at work. He had a preexisting back condition for which he received chiropractic care but it had never caused him to miss work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found apportionment inapplicable. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board later apportioned his award 90% to the preexisting condition and 10% to the work-related injury. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, stating that apportionment is not appropriate when a prior non-compensable condition did not prevent the claimant from performing their job, even if symptomatic. The court found no evidence that the claimant's preexisting back condition precluded him from performing his duties and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

ApportionmentPreexisting ConditionWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryWorkers' CompensationSubstantial EvidenceDisabilityDegenerative Disc DiseaseEmployer LiabilityCausation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mandziara v. Lowe's Home Centers

In 1995, the claimant suffered a back injury in Pennsylvania, leading to a workers' compensation claim. After multiple surgeries, symptoms were resolved by June 2001. In May 2003, while working for Lowe's Home Centers in Broome County, the claimant re-injured their back, initiating a new claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that apportionment did not apply to the workers' compensation award. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that apportionment is a factual issue and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court highlighted the claimant's asymptomatic period of over 14 months prior to the 2003 injury.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentBack InjuryPrior InjurySubstantial EvidenceAsymptomatic PeriodMedical OpinionCausal RelationshipAppeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Feinberg-Smith Associates, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision, finding apportionment inapplicable to the claimant's workers' compensation award, was appealed and subsequently affirmed. The claimant sustained back injuries in 1983, 1995 (compensable), and 1999 (current claim). Medical experts agreed on apportioning the 1999 injury with a pre-existing, non-compensable degenerative condition, but not with prior compensable injuries. The court held that apportionment is inapplicable when a prior condition is not a compensable injury and the claimant effectively performs their job despite it. The court further clarified the distinction with precedent regarding prior compensable injuries.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentBack InjuryPre-existing ConditionCompensable InjuryDegenerative ConditionMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPrior Accidents
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morin v. Town of Lake Luzerne

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 9, 2010, which applied apportionment to his workers’ compensation award, allocating 50% to a 2009 work-related back injury and 50% to a 2004 back injury. The appellate court clarified that apportionment is inapplicable when a preexisting condition was not due to a compensable injury and the claimant was fully employed and capable of performing job duties despite the condition. Evidence showed the claimant's 2004 back injury was not work-related, and he had worked full-time for over four years before the 2009 injury. The court emphasized that the key factor for apportionment is whether the prior condition was disabling, not merely symptomatic. Therefore, the Board’s decision to apportion the award was reversed as it lacked substantial evidence, and the case was remitted for further proceedings.

ApportionmentPreexisting InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawMedical EvidenceDisabling ConditionAppellate DivisionReversed DecisionRemandBack Injury ClaimEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Moore v. St. Peter's Hospital

The claimant, a nurse's aide, sustained two back injuries in 1994, resulting in a permanent partial disability and a lump-sum settlement. After a recurrence of back pain in 1999 and another surgery, she suffered a third back injury in April 2002 while working for the same employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned her award equally among the three incidents. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence, including an independent medical examination, supported the apportionment. The court noted that the medical expert testified the 1994 injuries were the 'index event' precipitating subsequent back problems, even though the treating physician attributed the disability solely to the 2002 injury.

ApportionmentWorkers' CompensationBack InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationRecurrencePrior InjuryAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruno v. Kelly Temp Service

In 1997, the claimant suffered a noncompensable lower back injury, but continued to work 40-60 hours per week for 18 months without missing work despite intermittent pain and medical treatment. In February 2000, she sustained a work-related lower back injury while working for Eastman Kodak Company. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that her award should be apportioned 75% to the 1997 injury and 25% to the 2000 injury, based on the preexisting condition being symptomatic and actively treated. The appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that apportionment applies only when the prior condition constitutes a 'disability in a compensation sense,' not merely a symptomatic condition. Since the claimant was fully employed and able to perform her duties effectively, her prior condition was not disabling, and the Board's finding lacked substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPreexisting ConditionDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittalBack InjuryWork-Related InjurySymptomatic Condition
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,322 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