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
Jun 02, 2008

Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related slip and fall in 2002, leading to injuries including his head, neck, back, and knees. His morbid obesity contributed to his back and knee issues, prompting him to seek authorization for gastric bypass surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge approved the surgery, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the surgery causally related to the compensable injuries. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the causal link. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting substantial evidence that the claimant's weight gain was a result of the sedentary lifestyle imposed by his injuries, and that the surgery would aid in his recovery.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryGastric Bypass SurgeryMorbid ObesityMedical Treatment AuthorizationCausationKnee InjuryBack InjurySedentary LifestyleBoard Decision Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Casiano v. CCIP/Union Settlement Home Care

In March 2001, claimant sustained a work-related back injury. Neurosurgeon Richard J. Radna recommended and performed decompression surgery despite the workers' compensation carrier denying preauthorization for the procedure. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the surgery was not medically necessary, thereby absolving the carrier of liability for its cost. Claimant and Radna appealed this determination to the appellate court. Radna's appeal was dismissed due to lack of standing, and the Board's decision was affirmed, as it was within its purview to resolve the conflicting medical evidence presented by Radna and the carrier's neurosurgeon regarding the necessity of the surgery.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical NecessitySurgical ProcedurePreauthorization DenialNeurological InjuryConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewStanding IssueCarrier LiabilityBack Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02960
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Robinson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

Jacqueline Robinson appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her request to reclassify her disability from permanent partial to temporary total following back surgery. Established with a permanent partial disability in 2015 for a 2009 work-related back injury, Robinson underwent back surgery in June 2018 and sought reclassification. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded temporary total disability payments for the post-surgery period up to the hearing date but reverted to permanent partial thereafter. The Board affirmed, finding no evidence that the surgery worsened her condition or caused "other trauma" or "significant reinjury." The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial record evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityDisability ReclassificationBack InjurySurgical ImpactMedical Evidence ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWage-Earning CapacityAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pawlak v. Ford Motor Co.

An assembly line worker, whose initial claim for a back injury in April 2000 was established, sought additional workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a neck injury, and reimbursement for back surgery performed in December 2000. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the additional claims, denied reimbursement for the surgery due to lack of authorization, and adjusted her compensation for the established back injury to reflect a moderate disability. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the carpal tunnel claim untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28 and the neck injury claim improperly noticed under Workers' Compensation Law § 18, also lacking causal relation evidence. The court further agreed that proper authorization was not obtained for the back surgery as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 13-a (5) and 12 NYCRR 325-1.4. The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision in its entirety.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 18Workers' Compensation Law § 13-aBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBack InjuryNeck Injury ClaimUntimely ClaimLack of AuthorizationDisability RatingAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Fave v. St. Lawrence County

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in October 1992. Years later, in November 1996, he was diagnosed with sciatica and a herniated disc, leading to surgery in March 1997. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his back condition was causally related to the 1992 injury. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting medical evidence supporting the causal relationship from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner, despite the employer's consultant expressing doubts. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the employer's request for further record development due to untimeliness.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealAffirmationTimelinessRecord Development
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C.

Frank Fernandez, an x-ray technician, sued his former employer, North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C., for retaliation under Title VII after filing a national origin discrimination complaint. A jury found in favor of Fernandez, awarding back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. North Shore subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to modify the damage awards. The court denied North Shore's motions for judgment and a new trial, affirmed the jury's back pay award, but vacated and reduced the front pay award from $160,000 to $50,000, and the punitive damages award from $100,000 to $50,000.

RetaliationTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesMitigation of DamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionEquitable Relief
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 1997

Claim of Krisher v. Graver Tank Manufacturing Co.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) that found no causally related disability during the period of April 10, 1995, to June 17, 1996. The claimant had sustained a back injury in 1990, followed by surgery in 1994, and later developed a left knee injury, leading to surgery in February 1995. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits for reduced earnings, but the WCB modified this, concluding there was no causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the WCB's decision, citing testimony from orthopedic surgeon Roy Wert that the claimant could return to work without restrictions by April 1995. Another orthopedic surgeon, George Fuksa, opined that the knee injury was preexisting and not a result of the back surgery.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityBack InjuryKnee InjuryMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonReduced EarningsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreexisting Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Krietsch v. Northport-East Northport UFSD

Kathryn Krietsch (decedent) suffered from scoliosis and had spinal fixation rods. In 2008, she sustained back injuries from a work-related fall, which led to a broken fixation rod eight months later. The Workers’ Compensation Board authorized surgery after overturning a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that the surgery was unrelated to the accident. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator appealed, arguing untimely service of the claimant's application for Board review, which the Board overlooked. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the orthopedic surgeon's testimony provided substantial evidence for a causal link between the work accident and the subsequent back surgery, despite conflicting medical evidence. The appeal regarding the denial of reconsideration and/or full Board review was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationBack InjurySpinal SurgeryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewTimeliness of ServiceAppellate ReviewScoliosis
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jweid v. Vicks Lithograph & Printing

Claimant injured his back at work in February 1999, leading to multiple diagnoses and back surgeries. Following surgeries, he developed a consequential left foot drop injury. A workers' compensation claim was established and later amended to include the foot drop. Medical evidence supported a 40% loss of use of the left foot and a permanent partial disability of his back, with the claimant having reached maximum medical improvement. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge made a schedule loss award for the 40% loss of use of the left foot, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing against a schedule loss award. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, as a schedule loss of use award is appropriate when there is no continuing need for medical treatment and the condition is stable.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseBack InjuryFoot DropMedical ImprovementPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,838 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