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. 533423
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Ryszard Cala

Ryszard Cala, an asbestos handler, filed a workers' compensation claim for binaural hearing loss, alleging it was caused by prolonged occupational exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim with a 25.32% schedule loss of use, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board credited the findings of the carrier's consultant, Daniel Arick, over claimant's physician, Michael Alleva. Cala appealed, arguing that Arick's independent medical examination (IME) report should have been precluded due to the absence of an accompanying audiogram, which is a requirement per Board precedent. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to provide a rational basis for departing from its own precedent regarding the submission of audiograms with IME reports, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational diseaseBinaural hearing lossSchedule loss of useWorkers' Compensation BoardIndependent medical examinationAudiogramAdministrative precedentRemittalAppellate reviewCausation
References
10
Case No. 536164
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ryszard Cala

Claimant Ryszard Cala filed an occupational disease claim in 2017 for binaural hearing loss due to asbestos exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim with a 25.32% schedule loss of use (SLU), crediting the carrier's consultant over the claimant's treating physician. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) affirmed this in 2020. On a previous appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted in 2022, finding the Board failed to address the missing audiogram results from the independent medical examination (IME) report. Upon remittal, the Board, in August 2022, ruled claimant's application for review from the WCLJ's decision was untimely and declined to entertain it. This Court again reversed, holding that the Board had implicitly excused the untimeliness in its 2020 decision, and therefore, upon remittal, should have addressed the merits concerning the audiogram omission. The matter is remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossAsbestos ExposureSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Independent Medical Examination (IME)AudiogramTimeliness of AppealRemittalAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 533423
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

Matter of Cala v. PAL Envtl. Safety Corp.

Claimant Ryszard Cala, an asbestos handler, filed an occupational disease claim for binaural hearing loss due to workplace noise exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and found a 25.32% schedule loss of use (SLU) based on the carrier's consultant's report, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. On appeal, the Court reversed, finding that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for crediting the carrier's consultant's findings, which lacked a submitted audiogram. This omission departed from the Board's own precedent requiring such documentation. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossSchedule Loss of UseMedical Report AdmissibilityIndependent Medical Examination (IME)AudiogramAdministrative PrecedentAppellate DivisionBoard Decision Reversal
References
9
Case No. CV-24-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Matter of Spada v. Keeler Constr. Co.

Claimant, a heavy equipment operator, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision establishing the claim for occupational disease and an 11.25% schedule loss of use. The employer and carrier appealed, contending a lack of causal relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board's decision that claimant sustained a causally-related binaural hearing loss was not supported by substantial evidence. The court cited inconsistent medical histories, other documented sources of noise exposure, and audiogram results that were inconsistent with noise-induced hearing loss, reversing that part of the decision and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSchedule Loss of UseNoise ExposureInconsistent Medical History
References
11
Case No. 2022-07-0684
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Martin, Marcus v. CECO DOOR PRODUCTS

Marcus Martin, a Ceco Door Products employee, sought workers' compensation benefits for bilateral hearing loss attributed to his work environment. The primary issue was the admissibility of Dr. Karl Studtmann’s thirty-three percent impairment rating and the extent of Mr. Martin's permanent partial disability. The Court excluded Dr. Studtmann’s rating, finding his "flat-line" methodology inappropriate and not accepted by the medical community, as it artificially altered audiogram results and lacked peer review. Instead, the Court relied on Dr. Mitchell Schwaber’s assessment, which, based on AMA Guides, assigned a two percent permanent impairment. Consequently, Mr. Martin was awarded $8,946.00 in permanent partial disability benefits.

Hearing losspermanent partial disabilityAMA Guidesimpairment ratingmedical evidenceexpert testimonynoise-induced hearing lossindependent medical evaluationaudiogramMMI
References
3
Case No. CV-24-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Guy Spada

Claimant, Guy Spada, a heavy equipment operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for binaural hearing loss attributed to prolonged workplace noise exposure. The employer, Keeler Construction Company, and its carrier controverted the claim, disputing a causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's finding of a causally-related hearing loss. The court determined that the medical opinions supporting causation lacked a rational basis due to inconsistent medical histories provided by the claimant, documented other sources of noise exposure, and audiogram results deemed inconsistent with noise-induced hearing loss by the carrier's consultant. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseBinaural Hearing LossCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewInconsistent HistoriesAudiogram ResultsNoise ExposureSchedule Loss of Use
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hassan v. Ford Motor Co.

A claimant, who worked as a laborer for over 35 years, applied for workers’ compensation benefits in 2007 due to occupational hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a .625% occupational loss of binaural hearing, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that audiometric examination results performed by the employer’s nurses were inadmissible because the nurses were not 'qualified professionals' under 12 NYCRR 351.7. The court found that the nurses had sufficient special certification and training, rendering them qualified professionals, and thus their reports were admissible. The court also upheld the credibility of the employer's independent medical examiner, Sayeed Nabi, whose opinion of .625% hearing loss was based on his own audiogram and consistent with other findings, over another physician’s opinion of a higher loss.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAudiometric TestingQualified ProfessionalsMedical Evidence AdmissibilityIndependent Medical ExaminationNurses Certification12 NYCRR 351.7Credibility AssessmentAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-7 of 7 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