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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07968 [189 AD3d 1946]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2020

Matter of Love v. Village of Pleasantville

Claimant, Richard Love, Chief of Police for the Village of Pleasantville, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries from a motor vehicle accident. The employer and carrier initially waived defenses by failing to timely serve a prehearing conference statement, a determination upheld in a prior appeal. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found a causal relationship, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The court ruled that despite the waiver of defenses, the claimant still bore the burden of proving a causal nexus between his employment and the accident. Finding that Love failed to demonstrate this nexus, as the accident occurred during a personal weekend trip, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentWaiver of DefensesCausal NexusCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentPolice OfficerChief of PoliceAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hercules v. United Artists Communications, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 20, 1988, which ruled that the claimant did not sustain a causally related disability. The Board had found the claimant's initial claim for a right knee injury, sustained in September 1982, barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 due to late filing in November 1984. Regarding a second claim for injuries sustained on October 11, 1983, the Board determined only the right shoulder injury was causally related to the work accident, denying a causally related disability for other injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments that the Board's findings lacked substantial evidence, failed to consider all relevant evidence, or erred in denying requests for reopening and reconsideration. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and its discretionary denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Workers' CompensationAppealDisabilityCausal RelationshipStatute of LimitationsEvidenceCredibilityJudicial DiscretionKnee InjuryShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2000

Claim of Moreines v. Lawrence Nursing Care Center

Claimant, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) by 1988, ceased employment in March 1995 due to her work environment exacerbating her condition. She filed a workers' compensation claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board initially ruled against a causal relationship between her work and MS exacerbation. Following an appeal, the Board amended its decision, affirming the carrier's consultant found no causal link, whose credibility was maintained under cross-examination. The claimant appealed both decisions, arguing the consultant's report was equivocal and the Board should have accepted her expert's unequivocal testimony. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the conflict in medical opinion was within the Board's province to resolve, and the carrier's consultant provided substantial evidence for the Board's finding of no causal link.

Workers' CompensationMultiple SclerosisCausalityMedical OpinionExpert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewDisease ExacerbationWork EnvironmentCredibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co.

This is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed December 1, 1994, which ruled that the claimant had no further causally related disability subsequent to October 23, 1989. The claimant was injured in 1986 and received benefits until 1989, but sought additional compensation for persistent back pain. The Board dismissed the claim, finding insufficient credible evidence of causality. Conflicting medical testimonies from physicians Richard Dellaporta, Sewall Miller, and Harry Cole were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that resolving conflicts in medical testimony is within the Board's province and that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. The claimant's contention regarding the presumption of causal relationship under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (5) was also rejected, as countervailing substantial evidence was presented.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceAppellate ReviewPresumption of CausalityWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(5)Back Pain InjuryBoard Decision AffirmationExpert Witnesses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Price v. KGM Plastic Industries

Claimant, a sales president for Caprice and KGM Plastic Industries, experienced severe emotional distress due to ongoing conflicts with his superior, Toshimasa Asai, regarding business decisions and job security. This culminated in a heated argument on January 6, 1983, after which the claimant became ill, developed nosebleeds, and suffered a stroke on January 11, 1983, leading to permanent disability. His physician testified that the stroke was causally related to job-induced emotional stress exacerbating pre-existing hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Board found a causally related disability, and this decision was affirmed on appeal, supported by substantial medical evidence despite controverting opinions.

Work-related disabilityEmotional distressCerebral vascular accidentStrokeHypertension exacerbationCausationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceEmployer-employee conflict
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McIver v. Mobil Oil Corp.

A claimant, employed by Mobil Oil Corporation, suffered a foot injury in 1975 that led to the development of a synovial sarcoma and subsequent amputation. The claimant filed for workers' compensation, but Mobil denied a causal connection between the injury and the cancer. After conflicting expert medical testimony and procedural disputes regarding expert witnesses and evidence, the Workers' Compensation Board concluded that a causal relationship existed. Mobil appealed this decision, raising concerns about due process and the removal of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no merit in Mobil's contentions.

Workers' CompensationCausal ConnectionSynovial SarcomaAmputationExpert Medical TestimonyDue ProcessImpartial SpecialistEvidentiary RulesCross-examinationBoard Decision
References
2
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

Claim of Stevenson v. Yellow Roadway Corp.

A tractor trailer operator employed by Yellow Roadway Corporation crashed and suffered a massive stroke, dying two days later. His widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, which the employer attempted to controvert. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the employer failed to timely controvert the claim, thereby barring their defenses regarding causation. Relying on the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), the Board established a causally related death. The employer appealed, challenging the application of the presumption and the finding of a causally related death. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding that the employer was precluded from raising defenses due to the untimely filing of the notice of controversy.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationPresumption of CompensabilityWorkers’ Compensation Law § 21Workers’ Compensation Law § 25Untimely ControversionStrokeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Guz v. Jewelers Machinist, Inc.

A factory worker claimant sustained a work-related injury in March 2002, leading to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The case was established for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, later amended to include a neck injury and aggravated back condition. In 2007, a major depressive disorder was added, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related psychiatric disability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this finding. The claimant appealed this reversal. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that the claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship with competent medical evidence and that the Board is the sole judge of witness credibility. The court found that the Board’s determination, which was based on rejecting the claimant's treating psychiatrist's testimony due to lack of complete information and relying on subjective accounts, was supported by substantial evidence.

Psychiatric DisabilityMajor Depressive DisorderCausationMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsCarpal Tunnel SyndromeNeck InjuryBack Condition
References
11
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
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,277 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