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
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 Huss v. Tops Markets, Inc.

In 1985, claimant sustained a right shoulder injury while employed by Dunlop Tire, resulting in a permanent partial disability. In 1998, he re-injured the same shoulder while working for Tops Markets, Inc., leading to a new workers' compensation claim. An impartial specialist attributed 85% of the disability to the 1985 injury and 15% to the 1998 injury. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially rejected apportionment, the Board reversed and applied the 85/15 apportionment. Claimant appealed, contending apportionment was unwarranted due to his disclosure of the prior injury and lack of prior disability symptoms. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence to support the apportionment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentPrior InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical Expert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewExacerbation
References
3
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 Forshee v. Gates Albert, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the apportionment of his workers' compensation award. The claimant had prior back injuries in 1988 and 1995, leading to lump-sum settlements, and suffered another work-related back injury in 2007. Initially, a workers’ compensation law judge attributed the disability solely to the 2007 injury. However, the Board modified this, apportioning 20% to the 2007 injury and dividing the remainder between the 1988 and 1995 injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence, including the opinion of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, supported the apportionment.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryPrior InjuriesLump-sum SettlementOrthopedic SurgeonMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sanchez v. Sts Steel

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from January 7, 2016, which granted a 30% Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) award for a right knee injury but applied apportionment to it. The claimant, a steel worker, sustained a work-related right knee injury in February 2007, necessitating a second arthroscopy. He had a prior nonwork-related right knee injury and surgery in 2005. The WCLJ found 66⅔% of the SLU attributable to the 2007 injury and 33⅓% to the 2005 injury. The Board upheld this apportionment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence from medical examiners that the prior nonwork-related injury, had it been compensable, would have resulted in an SLU finding.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseApportionmentRight Knee InjuryMeniscus TearPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
11
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
Apr 10, 2003

Claim of Peck v. Village of Gouverneur

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained head, chest, and neck injuries in a 2000 work-related accident. During surgery for these injuries, cancerous growths were discovered along his spine, prompting the employer to request apportionment of his workers' compensation award. Both the treating physician and the employer-retained physician affirmed the causal relationship between the fracture and the work-related accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the subsequent Workers’ Compensation Board both ruled against apportionment. The appellate court affirmed, citing that apportionment is inappropriate when a claimant's prior non-compensable condition did not hinder their ability to perform duties.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentVolunteer FirefighterWork-Related InjuryPre-existing ConditionCancer DiagnosisCausally RelatedMedical Expert TestimonyEmployer AppealBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
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. ADJ2100251 (LBO 0332162)
Regular
Jan 15, 2013

JO ELLEN ANDERSON vs. CITY OF RANCHO, Permissibly Self-Insured, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND, YORK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address issues concerning permanent disability apportionment and Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIF) eligibility. The applicant sustained an industrial injury in 2000, with prior significant rheumatoid arthritis and multiple surgeries. The Board rescinded the prior award, finding that the original apportionment of permanent disability between the employer and SIF was unsupported by the necessary factual findings. The case is returned for further proceedings to determine the extent of pre-existing disability and proper apportionment under Labor Code sections 4751, 4663, and 4664(a).

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751permanent total disabilityapportionmentrheumatoid arthritischronic pain syndromepermanent stationary dateLabor Code section 4664(a)Labor Code section 4663preexisting disability
References
4
Case No. ADJ6761550, ADJ6761551
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

JUAN SANCHEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By CAMBRIDGE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding applicant Juan Sanchez totally and permanently disabled. This disability stemmed from a combination of industrial injuries, including a stroke, which qualified for a conclusive presumption of total disability under Labor Code section 4662(d). The defendant City of Santa Clara had argued for apportionment of this disability based on prior awards and the distinct nature of the current injuries. However, the Board found that the conclusive presumption of total disability under section 4662 precluded apportionment. The concurring opinion agreed with the outcome but differed on the strict interpretation of unapportionability, asserting that apportionment might be possible in other section 4662 cases if properly proven.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundCity of Santa Clarapermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662incurable mental incapacitystrokecumulative injuryspecific injuryapportionment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13,114 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