Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02919

Regular Panel Decision

May 20, 2020

Giannone v. City of New York

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker for the City of New York, suffered a biceps tendon tear while lifting a heavy "sausage bag" with a coworker who lost their grip. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an action alleging common-law negligence against the City and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, determining the injury stemmed from a risk inherent in the plaintiff's employment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court concluded that the City had demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, establishing that the coworker was not negligent and the injury was an inherent hazard of the job.

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerCommon-law NegligenceLoss of ConsortiumSummary JudgmentInherent Hazard DoctrineEmployer DutyAppellate ReviewBiceps Tendon InjuryCoworker Negligence

References

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

Case No. ADJ10725180 ADJ11229196

Regular

Aug 08, 2018

JOAQUIN ROSALES vs. SWANSON FAHRNEY FORD, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of 8% permanent disability for the applicant's left elbow injury. The award was based on a panel QME's opinion that, while no scheduled impairment existed under the AMA Guides, other factors like constant pain, loss of strength, grasping difficulty, and tendon tears justified a rating under Table 13-22 and *Guzman*. The Board found Dr. Tabaddor's rationale sufficiently supported the impairment rating, distinguishing it from the "add-on" pain provisions addressed in *Blackledge*.

ADJ10725180ADJ11229196lateral epicondylitisAMA Guidespermanent disability ratingpanel qualified medical evaluatorKhosrow TabaddorMilpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman)scheduled impairmentwhole person impairment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkins v. New York Power Authority

The claimant, a lineman, sustained a shoulder injury in July 2007. Despite a diagnosis of biceps tendonitis and adhesive capsulitis, he declined prescribed medication and discontinued physical therapy, not missing work. He subsequently applied for workers’ compensation benefits based on a 45% schedule loss of use. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied benefits, citing the claimant's unreasonable refusal of treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the refusal reasonable. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence given the unanimous medical opinion that treatment was needed and claimant's refusal was unreasonable, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Shoulder InjuryBiceps TendonitisAdhesive CapsulitisSchedule Loss of UseRefusal of Medical TreatmentUnreasonable RefusalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06431 [188 AD3d 1395]

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Gallagher v. Hines Interests Ltd. Partnership

Claimant Edward Gallagher established a workers' compensation claim for a right bicep tear and right carpal tunnel injury. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board approved a stipulation for a 33 1/3% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right arm and no SLU of the right hand. Claimant later sought to reopen the claim for a 30% SLU of the right hand, presenting new medical reports. However, the Board rescinded an award previously made by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge, finding that the claimant did not demonstrate a sufficient change in condition to warrant reopening the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the medical records did not establish a change in condition sufficient to alter the terms of the stipulation.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryRight Carpal TunnelReopening ClaimChange in ConditionStipulationAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionJudicial Discretion

References

Case No. CV-23-1451

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Domenico Amato

Domenico Amato appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for bilateral arm injuries. Amato underwent surgeries for shoulder and biceps tears. Two orthopedic consultants, Frank Hudak and Lee Kupersmith, evaluated him for permanency, with differing SLU percentages. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected both opinions as unreliable, citing inconsistent range of motion measurements, and instead calculated a 20% SLU for each arm based on Kupersmith's earlier, non-permanency evaluations. The Appellate Division found the Board's rejection of the permanency evaluations permissible but ruled that the Board improperly fashioned its own SLU percentages using premature and incomplete medical reports. Consequently, the court modified the decision by reversing the 20% SLU awards and remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further consideration.

Workers' compensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Bilateral shouldersBiceps tendon tearArthroscopic surgeryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Range of Motion (ROM)Medical opinion reliabilityEvidentiary standardsRemittal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 25, 2013, which denied his application to include a partial right rotator cuff tear under his existing 2002 work-related injury claim. The Board found that claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2002 automobile accident and the 2009 rotator cuff tear, despite the opinion of his orthopedist. The orthopedist acknowledged that age-related degeneration could cause such tears independently of trauma. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the orthopedist's testimony did not convincingly prove a causal relationship.

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence

References

Case No. CV-24-2052

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

Claimant John Maini appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left foot, resulting from a ruptured Achilles tendon suffered in June 2022. The Board had modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 40% SLU. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board properly credited the opinion of the employer's consultant, whose interpretation of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically special consideration 6 regarding Achilles tendon ruptures, was consistent with the plain language of the guidelines and prior case law. The Court emphasized that range of motion deficits solely attributable to the Achilles tendon rupture could not be added to the SLU value assigned under special consideration 6, thereby supporting the 22.5% award.

schedule loss of useAchilles tendon ruptureworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionsubstantial evidencemaximum medical improvementrange of motionappellate revieworthopedic surgeonpermanent impairment

References

Case No. 518426

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 02, 2014

MatterofAndersonvNewYorkCityDepartmentofDesign&Construction

Donald Anderson, the claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a 2002 work-related automobile accident. Initially, his claim was established for neck and back injuries, but in 2005, the Workers' Compensation Board determined he had no continuing disability, noting he was magnifying symptoms. In 2009, Anderson was diagnosed with a partial right rotator cuff tear, which he sought to include under his existing claim, alleging a causal link to the 2002 accident. The Board denied this application, finding a lack of established causal relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Anderson failed to present convincing evidence from his orthopedist or any other proof to establish the necessary causal connection between the 2002 accident and his right rotator cuff tear.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRotator Cuff TearAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewShoulder InjurySubstantial EvidenceCausation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 15, 2008

Taylor v. American Radio Dispatcher, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The defendants established their prima facie case by submitting reports of independent medical examinations. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as her experts’ reports, opining on a tear of the anterior talo-fibular ligament and a tear of the meniscus of the right knee, lacked objective, contemporaneous evidence of the extent and duration of alleged physical limitations. Additionally, there was no contemporaneous medical proof for her claim that her injury prevented her from performing substantially all of her usual activities for 90 of the 180 days following the accident. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Serious injuryInsurance Lawsummary judgmentmedical examinationanterior talo-fibular ligamentmeniscus tearobjective evidencephysical limitationscustomary activitiesappellate division

References

Showing 1-10 of 82 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02919

Regular Panel Decision

May 20, 2020

Giannone v. City of New York

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerCommon-law NegligenceLoss of ConsortiumSummary JudgmentInherent Hazard DoctrineEmployer DutyAppellate ReviewBiceps Tendon InjuryCoworker Negligence

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. ADJ10725180 ADJ11229196

Regular

Aug 08, 2018

JOAQUIN ROSALES vs. SWANSON FAHRNEY FORD, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkins v. New York Power Authority

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06431 [188 AD3d 1395]

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Gallagher v. Hines Interests Ltd. Partnership

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryRight Carpal TunnelReopening ClaimChange in ConditionStipulationAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionJudicial Discretion

References

Case No. CV-23-1451

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Domenico Amato

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence

References

Case No. CV-24-2052

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

References

Case No. 518426

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 02, 2014

MatterofAndersonvNewYorkCityDepartmentofDesign&Construction

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRotator Cuff TearAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewShoulder InjurySubstantial EvidenceCausation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 15, 2008

Taylor v. American Radio Dispatcher, Inc.

Serious injuryInsurance Lawsummary judgmentmedical examinationanterior talo-fibular ligamentmeniscus tearobjective evidencephysical limitationscustomary activitiesappellate division

References

Showing 1-10 of 82 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.