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 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

Matter of Waddy v. Barnard College

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming the disallowance of a claimant's application for benefits. The claimant, an employee in a mail room, alleged that exposure to dust and mold due to poor ventilation at her workplace caused her to develop disabling asthma. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding no causal relationship between her asthma and employment, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Board. The Board's determination was based on the medical opinions of the treating pulmonologist, William Marino, who could not establish work-related causation, and an independent medical examiner, Carl Friedman, who concluded that the asthma was not workplace-induced, referencing a negative indoor air quality test. While the claimant's family physician, Rajesh Patel, suggested a probable work-related allergen exposure, the Board resolved the conflicting medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the ruling that the claimant did not sustain a causally related injury.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaOccupational DiseaseCausationMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Treating PhysicianEnvironmental IrritantsWorkplace ConditionsAppellate Review
References
5
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 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. 526688
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Bufearon v. City of Rochester Bur. of Empl. Relations

Claimant Kamren Bufearon sustained work-related injuries in a motor vehicle collision on March 4, 2016, for which his workers' compensation claim was established for injuries to his left shoulder, left hip, and lower back. Subsequently, he sought to amend his claim to include a causally-related cervical spine injury, which was initially approved by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant failed to sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between his cervical spine condition and the March 4, 2016 incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the medical testimony from two physicians contained conflicting findings and equivocal narratives regarding causation. The court concluded that the Board was entitled to reject the physicians' opinions as speculative, particularly since neither physician had reviewed the claimant's prior medical records for a pre-existing cervical spine fusion surgery.

Cervical spine injuryCausal relationshipMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardPre-existing conditionCredibility of physiciansBurden of proofMotor vehicle accident
References
13
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Neponsit Care Center

On February 16, 1995, while evacuating patients from a fire, claimant, a hospital police officer, suffered smoke inhalation and injuries to his neck, back, and arm. His workers' compensation claim was established for bronchitis, but the case was closed without a finding of permanency. The case was reopened due to ongoing respiratory issues. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant did not suffer a further causally related disability due to his bronchitis. This decision was affirmed on appeal, citing the testimony of physician Abiola Familusi, who stated that while claimant had chronic bronchitis and rhinitis causally related to the accident, it did not prevent him from returning to his job, provided he avoided smoke exposure.

Smoke InhalationChronic BronchitisChronic RhinitisCausally Related DisabilityHospital Police OfficerRespiratory ProblemsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyDisability RetirementWorkers' Compensation Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2003

Beesmer v. Village of DeRuyter Fire Department

In 1975, the decedent, a volunteer firefighter, suffered a heart attack and continuously received workers' compensation benefits until his death in 2002. His claimant applied for death benefits, alleging a causal link between the 1975 injury and his death. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits after denying the employer's request for a second adjournment to depose treating physicians, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The court found substantial evidence supporting the causal relationship between the heart attack and death, noting that a work-related injury need not be the sole cause of death. Additionally, the court upheld the WCLJ's denial of the adjournment, as the employer failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not scheduling depositions or serving subpoenas during the initial adjournment period.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationshipHeart AttackCongestive Heart FailureAdjournment DenialTreating Physician DepositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionVolunteer Firefighter
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1991

Claim of Ingham v. Oswego County

The claimant, a nursing assistant for Oswego County, sustained multiple injuries, including to the knee, back, wrist, and head, in an August 1979 accident while assisting a client. Over time, the claimant's condition deteriorated, leading to permanent total disability. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related disability for the knee and wrist, later amending it to include the low back and consequential obesity. The self-insured employer, Oswego County, appealed this decision, arguing the back injury claim was untimely and that the disability should be apportioned due to the claimant's prior back history and obesity. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, rejecting the County’s arguments by finding a waiver of the timeliness objection and substantial evidence supporting the aggravation of preexisting conditions as causally related to the 1979 accident, leading to total disability.

Permanent Total DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityAggravation of Preexisting ConditionWaiver of Section 28 DefenseTimeliness of Claim ObjectionConflicting Medical EvidenceSpinal InjuryObesity-Related DisabilityJoint InjuryEmployer Self-Insured
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,353 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