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. ADJ 7906635, ADJ 7906741
Regular
May 02, 2016

LINDA ARMS vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration. The County sought to overturn an award regarding the reasonable cost of two medical-legal reports from Dr. Ali Mostafavi. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, who found the attested hours and resulting fee schedule calculations for the reports to be reasonable. The County failed to demonstrate that the time spent by Dr. Mostafavi on the reports was unreasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCounty of KernLinda ArmsADJ 7906635ADJ 7906741Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFindings Orders and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerQME
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pugliese v. Remington Arms, Inc.

The claimant, employed by Remington Arms, Inc. for over three decades, sought workers' compensation benefits, citing severe depression and anxiety stemming from alleged harassment and falsification of attendance records by a supervisor. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied further adjournments for an independent medical examination (IME) report and cross-examination of the treating psychologist, determining the depression to be an occupational disease. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this, reclassifying it as a compensable accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the use of hearsay evidence, the preclusion of their IME report, and the denial of their right to cross-examine the claimant's treating psychologist. The appellate court found sufficient corroboration for the hearsay evidence and upheld the IME report's preclusion due to the carrier's delays. However, the court reversed the denial of cross-examination, stating that the absence of the IME report did not negate the carrier's right, especially given their dispute on causal relationship. Consequently, the case was reversed and remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

DepressionAnxietyWorkplace HarassmentAttendance Records FalsificationIndependent Medical ExaminationIME Report PreclusionRight to Cross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceCorroborating EvidenceOccupational Disease
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Knisell v. Treasure Chest Advertising Co.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury on October 12, 1999. Initially reporting an injury to her left arm, she later experienced neck pain and sought workers' compensation benefits for injury to her left arm, shoulder, and neck. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially barred the neck injury claim due to a failure to provide timely notice to the employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the employer was aware of the neck, arm, and shoulder injury on the date of the accident. The employer appealed the Board's reversal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion of employer awareness was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementCausally Related InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryArm InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalEmployer Knowledge
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06424 [188 AD3d 1381]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Hluska v. Central New York Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Kevin Hluska, who previously received a 13% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm due to a 2016 shoulder injury, sustained a new work-related injury to his left elbow in 2017. His physician determined this new injury resulted in a 10% SLU of the left arm. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the previous SLU award for the same arm exceeded the current impairment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3), which limits SLU awards for permanent impairments to specific body parts and allows for multiple awards only if for more than one member or parts of more than one member, but the total award for a member is capped.

Schedule Loss of UseSLU AwardLeft Arm InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Division Third DepartmentPermanent ImpairmentPrior AwardSubsequent Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Burke v. New York Telephone Co.

The employer appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding the claimant a 90% schedule loss of use of the left arm, arguing the award lacked substantial evidence. The record contained a C-71 report from a board medical examiner, dated January 23, 1974, which indicated a permanent partial disability equivalent to a 90% schedule loss of the left arm. While there was a dispute regarding the degree of disability, most medical experts who examined the claimant over a decade agreed that a permanent loss of use of the left hand and arm resulted from the work-related accident. The court determined this case involved conflicting expert medical evidence, which was within the board's purview to resolve. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the board's denial of the employer's request for another medical examination. Consequently, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseMedical Evidence ConflictBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewLeft Arm InjuryMedical Examiner ReportSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAffirmation of Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2013

Claim of Pankiw v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Claimant, who suffered work-related injuries in 2004, had a 20% schedule loss of use of his left arm opined in 2007, and a consequential right shoulder injury was added in 2008 with a 30% schedule loss of use, for which the Special Fund became liable. In 2011, claimant sought further action, leading a WCLJ to transfer liability to the Special Fund. However, the Board reversed, finding the case was not "truly closed" because the issue of the left arm injury remained unaddressed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the lack of resolution on the left arm injury meant further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being deemed truly closed for liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseConsequential InjuryCase ClosureLiability ShiftAppellate DivisionFactual DeterminationCompensation PaymentsUnaddressed Issues
References
5
Case No. SFO 0496045
Regular
Mar 10, 2008

DENNIS RUTKOWSKI vs. CITY OF LARKSPUR - FIRE DEPARTMENT, INNOVATIVE CLAIM SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding a firefighter sustained industrial cancer in his left arm. While affirming the WCJ's findings on injury and entitlement to treatment, the Board amended the award to correct the affected limb to the applicant's right arm. The defendant's arguments challenging the medical evidence and burden of proof were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterCancerLatency PeriodFaust v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Burden of ProofReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMedical TreatmentFindings of Fact
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 267 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