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. ADJ1973305 (STK 0199710)
Regular
Jan 30, 2009

Silviano De La Torre vs. PETE POSTMA DAIRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, returning the case for re-evaluation of permanent disability. The board found merit in the applicant's argument that gait derangement and cane use were not adequately considered in the original rating. However, the WCAB upheld the finding that the defendant failed to establish apportionment to a prior injury due to a lack of due diligence. The applicant's request to apply the 1997 rating schedule was deemed waived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSilviano De La TorrePete Postma DairyState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1973305STK 0199710ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersWorkers' Compensation JudgeTemporary Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ3403193 (RIV 0072531)
Regular
Sep 08, 2009

PERRY NICKLE vs. MESA CONTRACTING CORPORATION, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the original award and substituting a new one. The Board found that the applicant did not sustain a hearing loss injury but did sustain neurological and orthopedic permanent disability. They determined that 60% of the orthopedic disability and 50% of the neurological disability were non-industrial, resulting in a revised permanent disability award of 31%. The Board also confirmed the applicant's entitlement to a cane and further medical treatment based on expert medical opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityNeurological DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityHearing LossDegenerative Disease
References
2
Case No. ADJ7439712
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

Lynn Riddick vs. Radio Shack, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award finding the applicant sustained a right shoulder injury AOE/COE. The Board found the applicant's shoulder injury was a compensable consequence of using a cane for a prior industrial lower back injury. The Board determined the primary treating physician's opinion was substantial evidence and that the defendant's arguments regarding inconsistencies in the evidence were unfounded. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)compensable consequencesingle-point caneindustrial injurylower back injuryright shoulder injuryQualified Medical Examiner (QME)substantial evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ8914954
Regular
Mar 26, 2015

JUAN CASTRO vs. CONTAINER SUPPLY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. The ALJ's decision was based on the treating physician's detailed reports and the applicant's credible testimony regarding his persistent limp and use of a cane. The Board gave great weight to the ALJ's credibility determination, noting that a single physician's opinion can constitute substantial evidence. The employer had argued the ALJ erred by relying on the treating physician's opinion over the Panel QME's report.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility determinationsubstantial evidencemedical opinionsPanel QMEtreating physicianpermanent disabilityleft ankle injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hershewsky v. Community General Hospital

Claimant, who sustained a back injury in 1992, was accused by her employer and carrier in 2011 of violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false statements. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found that surveillance video contradicted the claimant's testimony regarding her physical limitations. The video showed claimant needing assistance and a cane at a hearing but later walking a dog unassisted and bending. Despite claimant's denial, an investigator confirmed it was her. The Board's decision to disqualify her from future benefits was affirmed on appeal, as it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse StatementSurveillance VideoCredibility IssueSubstantial EvidenceBenefit DisqualificationAppellate ReviewBack InjuryPhysical LimitationsWCL § 114-a
References
4
Case No. ADJ9070509
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

GIHAN MOSAAD vs. WALMART STORES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns the admissibility of store surveillance video footage from the applicant's date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a future decision proves adverse. The WCJ determined the video was relevant to the nature, extent, and apportionment of the applicant's injury, noting it shows the applicant using a cane and stocking shelves before being removed on a stretcher. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal was necessary before a final decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmissibility of VideoStore Surveillance VideoDate of InjuryWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings & Order
References
2
Case No. CV-22-2386
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Alejandro Tirado

The claimant, Alejandro Tirado, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by misrepresenting his physical capabilities. He received wage replacement benefits for work-related injuries from 2013. Surveillance videos from 2018-2021 showed him performing activities inconsistent with his reported disability during Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs), leading to findings by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board that he exaggerated his condition and used a cane as a prop. Consequently, he was subjected to a mandatory penalty disqualifying him from past wage replacement benefits and a discretionary lifetime bar from future benefits due to egregious misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and the discretionary penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aDisqualification of BenefitsWage Replacement BenefitsSurveillance Video EvidenceIndependent Medical Examinations (IMEs)Exaggerated DisabilityFraudulent ClaimAppellate ReviewEgregious MisrepresentationsLifetime Bar
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04069 [195 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Quaranta v. Special Teams, Inc.

Vincent Quaranta, the appellant, had an established workers' compensation claim. His employer and carrier alleged he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly making material misrepresentations to obtain benefits, citing surveillance video footage. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no violation, the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, imposing both a mandatory penalty and a discretionary permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Quaranta feigned the extent of his disability during a July 2017 independent medical examination by misrepresenting his need for a cane, thereby upholding the violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision to disqualify Quaranta from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of his conduct.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violationMaterial misrepresentationFraudulent claimsDisqualification from benefitsWage replacement benefitsSurveillance video evidenceIndependent medical examination (IME)Antalgic gaitUse of assistive devicesAppellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Quigley v. Concern for Independent Living

Claimant sustained injuries to her left arm and wrist in an unwitnessed fall at work and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the full Board subsequently affirmed, prompting an appeal by the employer and its carrier. The employer contended the accident was due to an idiopathic condition, citing the claimant's use of a cane for balance and her inability to identify a work-related cause for the fall. However, the Board credited the claimant's testimony that she did not know the cause of her fall, deeming her statements about losing balance or footing as general descriptions rather than proof of a non-work-related incident. Given the absence of medical opinions linking the fall to idiopathic reasons, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the accident arose out of employment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 21Work-Related InjuryIdiopathic ConditionPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationUnwitnessed AccidentFall at WorkWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 12 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