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

Matter of Lichten v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a bus driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to an occupational disease stemming from repetitive stress injuries to his legs, including his hips, knees, and feet, caused by his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the case for bilateral hips but disallowed the claim for bilateral knees. This disallowance was upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision. Medical testimony presented conflicting opinions regarding the causal relationship of claimant's knee condition to his work activities. The Board's decision to discredit the treating orthopedist's opinion was found to be supported by substantial evidence and was within its authority concerning credibility determinations. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryBilateral KneesCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionBus Driver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sattanino v. Sanitary District Number 6

In 2003, the claimant, a sanitation worker, sustained bilateral knee injuries from a slip and fall during work. The self-insured employer's third-party administrator acknowledged the claim but contested the schedule loss of use and apportionment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially apportioned a significant part of the claimant's knee impairment to preexisting arthritis. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, ruling that apportionment was inapplicable since the prior condition was not a compensable injury and the claimant had been fully employed despite it. The Board established the schedule loss of use at 50% for the right leg and 32.5% for the left leg. The employer's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful, and the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentSchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionArthritisKnee InjurySanitation WorkerEmployer AppealWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical Report
References
4
Case No. 529417
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Johnson v. City of New York

Thomas Johnson, a patient care technician, sustained work-related knee injuries in a February 2006 fall. He subsequently sustained additional work-related injuries in November 2009 to his neck, back, shoulder, and hips, for which he received schedule loss of use (SLU) awards for his right arm, left leg, and right leg. The Workers' Compensation Board later ruled on the permanency of his 2006 injuries, finding an 80% SLU for his left leg and a 40% SLU for his right leg. However, the Board reduced these new awards by his previously received SLU awards for the 2009 injuries, resulting in a final 30% SLU for his left leg and a 0% SLU for his right leg. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, confirming that SLU awards for the knee and hip are encompassed within leg awards, and prior leg SLU awards must be deducted from subsequent leg SLU awards.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuriesHip InjuriesLeg ImpairmentPrior SLU Award DeductionAppellate Division ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician ReportPermanent Impairment GuidelinesWork-related Accident
References
9
Case No. ADJ14099837; ADJ18327322
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

ROBERT SCHLIESMANN vs. SOLAR OPTIMUM DESIGN AND ELECTRICAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Robert Schliesmann, sustained an injury to his lumbar spine, lower extremities, left leg, and bilateral feet while employed as a solar tech. The case was initially dismissed due to the applicant's perceived inaction. However, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated the dismissal, finding that the defendant failed to comply with the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) requests for diagnostic testing and documents, thereby impeding the QME process. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for substantial justice and the defendant's duty to conduct a reasonable and timely investigation of claims.

PQMEAdjudication NumbersFindings and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5803Good CauseOrder of DismissalPetition to ReopenRescind
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Hitachi Construction Machinery Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Kids Waterfront Corp., suffered severe injuries, including bilateral leg amputation, from an excavator owned by Sanzo Enterprises, Inc., and operated by a co-employee. Plaintiff sued Sanzo Enterprises, Inc., alleging negligent operation of a motor vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law, negligent entrustment of dangerous equipment, and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Sanzo Enterprises moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but denied the motion for the other three claims, finding sufficient issues of fact for trial.

Excavator AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligent EntrustmentMotor Vehicle LawLabor Law § 200Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyDemolition DebrisSolid Waste Transfer Station
References
97
Case No. ADJ1784264 (MON 0302991)
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

GIRGIS FAM vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, partially overturning the original decision. The Board found that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his bilateral legs as initially determined. However, the Board affirmed the finding of total permanent disability due to diminished earning capacity and inability to compete in the open labor market, attributing it to lumbar spine and urinary incontinence injuries with full duplication. The Board also modified the temporary disability period and established a new permanent and stationary date of September 17, 2004, returning certain issues like attorney fees and home healthcare costs to the trial level for further determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injurybilateral legscustodial supervisorurinary incontinencetotally and permanently disableddiminished future earning capacityapportionment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Riescher v. Central Hudson Gas Electric

A claimant suffered two left knee injuries, first in 1999 and second in 2009, both while working as a lineman for a utility company. The first injury, covered by Alliance National Insurance Co., resulted in a 30% schedule loss of use for the left leg. The second injury, covered by Travelers Indemnity Company of America, led to a total bilateral knee replacement. The cost of left knee surgery was initially apportioned 80% to Alliance and 20% to Travelers. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later ruled that this apportionment applied only to the *increase* in the schedule loss of use award, not the overall award. The WCLJ found an overall 50% loss of use, representing a 20% increase, and applied the apportionment to this increase, resulting in Alliance being responsible for 46% and Travelers for 4% of the overall award. Alliance appealed, arguing for apportionment of the overall award, but the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. The appellate court further affirmed the Board's decision, declining to reconsider the method of apportionment.

Workers' Compensation AppealSchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryApportionmentInsurance Carrier LiabilityWCLJ DecisionBoard ReviewJudicial DiscretionLeft Leg InjuryLien
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Trickel

In this case, the claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a consequential injury claim. The claimant sustained a fractured right tibia and fibula in 1988 during employment, for which workers’ compensation benefits were granted. In 1991, the claimant suffered a lower back injury and contended it was a consequence of the 1988 leg injury and subsequent leg shortening. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this claim, ruling the 1991 accident was new and unrelated, and apportioned disability with 50% attributed to the noncompensable 1991 incident, 25% to the 1988 leg injury, and 25% to a prior noncompensable leg injury. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that whether a disability is consequentially related is a factual question for the Board and that the Board was free to credit the carrier’s expert testimony which found no causal relationship.

Workers' CompensationAppealCausally Related InjuryBack InjuryLeg FracturePermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceNew Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1979

In re the Claim of D'Amore v. Town of Hempstead

A claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding injuries sustained during employment. The claimant was injured by a falling heater, striking his head, right big toe, and leg, leading to subsequent ulceration, gangrene, and amputations of the toe and leg. Although initial medical reports only noted a head injury, later testimony from the claimant and medical experts, Dr. Grauer and Dr. Ahmad, established the link between the workplace accident and the toe and leg injuries. The Board found the injuries causally related. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the findings.

AmputationGangreneUlcerationToe injuryLeg injuryHead injuryWorkplace accidentCredibilitySubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. ADJ2505068
Regular
May 28, 2013

MARIA FREITAS vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied SaveMart Supermarkets' petition for reconsideration of an award finding the applicant's right leg injury to be a compensable consequence of her industrial back injury. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible, supported by medical opinions noting prior leg weakness and difficulty walking. The judge found that a contemporaneous surgeon's report, which stated the applicant missed a step, was less persuasive than the applicant's consistent testimony and supporting medical evidence. The WCAB upheld the judge's credibility determination and the finding that the leg injury was causally related to the admitted back injury.

Compensable Consequence InjuryCredibility FindingWCJ Report AdoptionTibia FractureCumulative Back InjuryMechanism of InjuryLower Extremity WeaknessAntalgic GaitSworn TestimonyMedical Opinion
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 512 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