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

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 However, the Board rescinded this decision, finding Nieves' opinion insufficient as it was based on subjective complaints rather than objective signs of CRPS.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The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding the medical record inadequate to determine applicant's claim of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS).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. 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. 2024 NY Slip Op 02366 [227 AD3d 406]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Matter of Carlson v. New York City Council

This case concerns a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding initiated by Christina Carlson and others against the New York City Council and the New York City School Construction Authority (SCA). The Supreme Court had annulled SCA's negative declaration for a proposed school development, remanding for an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court concluded that despite misclassifying the project as 'unlisted' instead of 'Type I' under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the SCA nonetheless conducted an equivalent Type I review, fulfilling the 'hard look' requirement for potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the misclassification did not necessitate annulling the negative declaration.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)Type I ActionUnlisted ActionMisclassificationJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionSchool Construction Project
References
23
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03008
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2023

Matter of Andes v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Riverhead

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by William F. Andes, Jr., and others, challenging a determination by the Planning Board of the Town of Riverhead. The Planning Board had approved a minor lot subdivision application for John and Sandra Reeve and classified it as a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), thereby exempting it from further environmental review. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, annulled the Planning Board's determination, citing a failure to comply with SEQRA, and remitted the matter for a proper environmental impact analysis. On appeal by the Planning Board, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, ruling that the Planning Board's Type II classification was arbitrary and capricious. The Appellate Division found no rational basis in the record for the classification and noted that subsequent amendments to the Town Code supporting such a classification were not applicable at the time of the Board's decision.

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Minor SubdivisionPlanning BoardTown CodeArbitrary and CapriciousCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewLand UseZoning Board of AppealsEnvironmental Impact Analysis
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lipinski v. Skinner

Plaintiff David Lipinski sought permission from the court to file a late notice of claim concerning pendent state claims, asserting violations of his constitutional and common law rights during arrest and confinement. The central issue was whether a federal court could properly entertain this motion under New York State General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The court examined § 50-e(7), which specifies state supreme or county courts as the proper forums. It distinguished prior federal rulings, noting the 1979 amendment to § 50-e(7) clarified that the designated forum type was distinct from venue provisions. Considering judicial economy and legislative intent, the court found that the legislature intended to increase court accessibility through venue, not by expanding the types of courts that could hear such motions. Consequently, the federal court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the § 50-e(5) application and denied the plaintiff's motion without prejudice.

Federal jurisdictionState substantive lawGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eLate notice of claimFederal vs State court jurisdictionStatutory interpretationVenue disputeJudicial economyLegislative intentDistrict Court decision
References
6
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 Hastings v. Fairport Central School District

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).

References
1
Showing 1-10 of 117 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