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. 2018 NY Slip Op 04413 [162 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Tobin v. Finger Lakes DDSO

Kristi M. Tobin, a support aide, sustained injuries in April 2012 after being assaulted by a client, leading to a workers' compensation claim established for various injuries including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD)/complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of her right face. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded schedule loss of use for vision loss and facial disfigurement. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, classifying claimant's RSD/CRPS and ptosis as a nonschedule permanent partial disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rescinding the prior awards, and remitting the case for further record development regarding loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence supported the nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification due to the claimant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening ptosis, consistent with not receiving both schedule loss of use and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards for the same work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseReflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Facial DisfigurementWage-Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Eber v. Jawanio, Inc.

The claimant, who had prior work-related injuries in 2001 and 2002, filed a new workers' compensation claim in 2006 for alleged right arm, hand, and wrist injuries from a slip and fall, claiming it aggravated her existing complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The Workers' Compensation Board had previously denied amending the 2002 claim to include CRPS due to insufficient medical evidence. For the 2006 claim, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established it based on neurologist Walter Nieves' opinion, who diagnosed CRPS. However, the Board rescinded this decision, finding Nieves' opinion insufficient as it was based on subjective complaints rather than objective signs of CRPS. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the rejection of Nieves' opinion and the denial of benefits.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsComplex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Causal RelationMedical Expert TestimonySubjective SymptomsObjective Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardInjury Aggravation
References
4
Case No. ADJ8731635
Regular
Apr 02, 2019

Daissy Contreras vs. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding the medical record inadequate to determine applicant's claim of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). While some physicians noted symptoms consistent with CRPS, the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) found no objective evidence. The Board ordered the matter returned to the trial level for further development of the medical record by appointing a pain management specialist. This new evaluation will aim to diagnose the applicant's right upper extremity condition and determine its industrial causation.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeCRPSskin injuryrashcumulative traumaAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEskin conditionright upper extremitypain management specialist
References
4
Case No. ADJ9176746, ADJ10288149
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

ANA MARIA ROCHA vs. GREEN VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Ana Maria Rocha's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. The applicant's primary contentions involved a separate psychological injury, her CRPS classification, apportionment of disability, and future medical treatment for her neck and back. The Judge found no separate psychological injury, that medical opinions on CRPS classification were for physicians, that apportionment was supported by substantial evidence regarding pre-existing conditions, and that further medical treatment was not warranted for her neck and back.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedAdministrative Law JudgePsychological InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCRPSWhole Person ImpairmentAMA Guides
References
3
Case No. ADJ1232764
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

ALEXANDRA CULLEN-WRIGHT vs. CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCAB decision denying jurisdiction to amend a prior award, arguing her RSD constitutes an insidious, progressive disease exempting it from the five-year statute of limitations. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate her RSD met the criteria for an insidious, progressive disease as defined in *General Foundry Service v. WCAB*. Furthermore, the Board noted the original decision did not reserve jurisdiction and no timely petition to reopen was filed to address this possibility. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to amend the award over five years post-injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5804cumulative injurycomplex regional pain syndromeRSDagreed medical examinersubstantial evidencepermanent and stationarysympathetic ganglion blockpetition to set aside
References
8
Case No. ADJ7376647 (1-ARB-130005)
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

Christopher Santi vs. Contra Costa Electric, Zurich Insurance Co.

The applicant seeks reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision concerning a July 2009 industrial injury. The applicant argues the arbitrator erred by not considering his Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) diagnosis, which treating and defense physicians link to $100\%$ permanent total disability. The applicant also challenges the apportionment of psychiatric disability, contending the QME's report lacks substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case for further proceedings to allow the arbitrator to review critical evidence, specifically the deposition of the applicant's treating physician, and to address the CRPS findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardChronic Regional Pain SyndromeApportionmentQualified Medical ExaminerDepositionsMedical EvidencePermanent DisabilityTrial Level
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Orange Heating & Cooling

Claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1994, began experiencing right arm and shoulder pain four years later, which treating physicians diagnosed as reflex sympathy dystrophy (RSD) causally related to the 1994 incident. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the right arm and shoulder pain was not causally related to the earlier accident. On appeal, the Board's determination was supported by expert testimony from Michael Weintraub, a clinical professor of neurology, who attributed the pain to the claimant’s severe diabetes rather than RSD. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that the Board is the arbiter of credibility determinations, especially concerning causation. Thus, the court upheld the denial of workers’ compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationCausationReflex Sympathy DystrophyDiabetesMedical Expert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate AffirmationInjury ClaimCredibilityMedical Evidence
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00657
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Dibenedetto v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.

Claimant Claire Dibenedetto, who suffered a work-related left shoulder injury in 2012, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include consequential Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) in her left and right upper extremities. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially approved the amendment and related medical treatments, but the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this decision, ruling that CRPS was not established and adjusting the disability rate. The Board also resolved disputed medical bills and denied further injections against the claimant. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The court found that the Board's determination might have been based on an incomplete review of the record, specifically failing to consider a crucial medical report from a physician at the Cleveland Clinic.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Consequential InjuryMedical Evidence ReviewDisability DeterminationAppellate RemittalIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Pain Management TreatmentClaim AmendmentBoard DiscretionCredibility Assessment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Johnson v. Adams & Associates

In 2009, the claimant sustained a left knee injury at work, leading to an established workers’ compensation claim that was later amended to include other left lower extremity conditions. In 2013, the claimant sought to further amend the claim to include consequential reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) to the left upper extremity. Both a Workers’ Compensation Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, citing a lack of credible medical evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The court noted conflicting medical opinions, with independent medical examiners finding no objective signs of RSD, while the claimant’s treating physician made the diagnosis based on subjective complaints. The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that advance payments of compensation estopped the carrier from contesting liability, clarifying that such payments do not preclude other defenses.

Reflex Sympathetic DystrophyRSDLeft Upper ExtremityConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationObjective SignsSubjective ComplaintsEstoppel
References
6
Case No. ADJ363747 (RDG 0125429)
Regular
May 05, 2009

CAROLYN BETTIS vs. SISKIYOU DEVELOPMENT CO. INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the July 15, 2009 Findings and Award, and returned the matter for a new decision consistent with Dr. Horner's medical opinion which found that the applicant's CRPS was not industrially caused.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeCRPSindustrial causationsubstantial evidencequalified medical evaluatorpermanent and stationary datetemporary disabilitywhole person impairmentmedical opinionburden of proof
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 22 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