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

Yerry v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant, a member of the Board, who sustained a compensable industrial accident on April 21, 1976. The claimant suffered a foot injury which was subsequently aggravated by work activities, leading to thrombophlebitis of the right leg and pulmonary emboli, requiring surgery. The Board, in decisions filed December 7, 1977, and August 10, 1978, found that the claimant's work activities aggravated the condition, establishing a causal relation based on testimony. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence to sustain the Board's determination and deemed it unnecessary to consider the personal act doctrine. Costs were awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the appellant State Insurance Fund.

Industrial AccidentAggravated InjuryThrombophlebitisPulmonary EmbolismCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidencePersonal Act DoctrineAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundBoard Decision Affirmance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2002

Claim of Ostuni v. Town of Ramapo

Claimant appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 22, 2002, which denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of a prior decision. The prior decision had ruled that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury, citing insufficient credible evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, finding that the Board fully considered all evidence and no new, previously unavailable evidence was offered to warrant altering its decision. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s September 2001 decision that claimant’s injuries were not compensable, as her recurring lower back pain stemmed from injuries predating or following the alleged November 1990 incident, rather than the incident itself. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of contrary testimony as not credible.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryWork-Related InjuryReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ford v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a public relations director, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 1994 due to work-related posttraumatic stress disorder, but later withdrew the claim in March 1997 due to a parallel federal civil rights action, leading to its closure without a decision on merits. In March 2003, claimant sought to reopen the case, which the Workers' Compensation Board denied in February 2004, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 123 as a bar. The Board subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review in July 2004, prompting the claimant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no new evidence was presented for reconsideration and that the Board had properly determined the claim was truly closed and time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as over seven years had lapsed since the accident. Consequently, the appellate decision concluded that the Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialTime-Barred ClaimPosttraumatic Stress DisorderFederal Civil Rights ActionJurisdictionReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Paul Smith's College

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient record support for the finding. The court upheld the Board's determination, citing claimant's testimony that he was injured while cleaning a chainsaw on employer's equipment during slack time, a common practice. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, and issues of credibility were for the Board to resolve. The decision and amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentPersonal Use of EquipmentSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityBoard DeterminationAppellate ReviewInjury during workCommon Practice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Matter of Empara v. New Rochelle School District

The claimant, an electrician, sustained two work-related left leg injuries in 2003 and 2009. A 37.5% schedule loss of use was initially stipulated for the 2003 injury. After the 2009 injury, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits based on a 20% loss of use without considering the prior award. The employer appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's decision, finding no increased schedule loss of use greater than the previously awarded amount. The claimant then appealed the Board's decision, which was affirmed, upholding the timeliness of the employer's appeal and the Board's finding that there was no new or greater increase in the schedule loss of use related to the 2009 accident.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent ImpairmentMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewTimeliness of AppealBoard DecisionLeft Leg InjuryOrthopedic OpinionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Claim of Brigandi v. Town & Country Linoleum & Carpet

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its compensation carrier against decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decedent, a carpet layer, died from cardiac arrest during work, with an autopsy revealing underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. His widow was awarded death benefits. The employer’s carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), asserting a preexisting permanent physical impairment. However, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the decedent’s heart condition hindered his job potential before his death, thus releasing the Special Disability Fund from liability and holding the compensation carrier responsible. The employer's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board, leading to these appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board rationally found no proof that the decedent's heart disease impaired his job potential, a necessary condition for reimbursement under WCL § 15 (8) (d).

Special Disability FundPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCardiac ArrestCoronary Atherosclerotic DiseaseDeath Benefits ClaimEmployer ReimbursementCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision ReviewAppellate AffirmationMedical Evidence Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1993

Claim of Kroeger v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding death benefits to a claimant, the widow of a Workers' Compensation Board Commissioner. The decedent collapsed and died from an intercranial pontine hemorrhage after work. The Board found his death causally related to job stress, despite his pre-existing conditions (obesity, hypertension, arteriosclerosis). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court noted conflicting medical testimony regarding the causal link between work stress and death but upheld the Board’s prerogative to weigh such evidence. Ultimately, the Board's decision to award death benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipJob StressIntercranial Pontine HemorrhageMedical Testimony ConflictPre-existing ConditionsDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 28,632 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