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
Jul 18, 1995

Lopez v. Queen Lace Corp.

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in March 1975, and his case was closed in August 1978 after a finding of permanent partial disability and an $8,000 lump-sum payment. The case was reopened due to a reported change in medical condition, specifically exacerbation of back and neck pain. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that no unanticipated change in condition had occurred, leading to the case being closed again. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing substantial evidence including negative MRI results and physician testimony, indicating no worsening of the claimant's condition warranting additional benefits.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLump-Sum AdjustmentMedical Condition ChangeBack InjuryNeck Pain ExacerbationMRI ResultsPhysician TestimonyWorkers' Compensation Law § 15 [5-b]Appellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Parietti v. Dellwood Country Club, Inc.

Claimant suffered a compensable back injury in 1965, leading to a permanent partial disability and a $15,000 lump-sum award in 1976. The case was later reopened to assess a change in the claimant's condition, particularly concerning new neck pain, which the carrier argued was previously considered and that the claimant was guilty of laches. The Board found a change in condition, determining the claimant's status had progressed to permanent total disability, a finding supported by medical evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the carrier's awareness of the neck condition and its failure to contest its causal relationship to the industrial accident.

Workers' CompensationLump-sum AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityChange in ConditionMedical EvidenceBack InjuryNeck PainReopened CaseLaches
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Thomas v. Crucible Materials Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from February 25, 2009, which denied his application to reopen a workers' compensation claim. The claimant had sustained a right shoulder injury in 2002, leading to a 70% schedule loss of use classification in 2003. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially reclassified the claimant with a permanent total disability in 2007 due to worsening condition, the Board reversed this, finding insufficient proof of a significant change in medical condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board has discretion in reopening cases and that conflicting medical evidence supported the conclusion that no substantial change in the claimant's condition since 2003 had been established, despite arguments regarding deteriorating range of motion and complex regional pain syndrome.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Total DisabilityReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceChange in ConditionBoard DiscretionRotator Cuff InjuryComplex Regional Pain SyndromeAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 531567
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Yi Sun

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020, which denied her request to reopen two workers' compensation claims and seek an increase in benefits. Sun, a former jeweler technician and hotel housekeeper, had established claims in 2002 and 2008 for occupational bronchitis and work-related injuries, respectively, both resulting in permanent partial disabilities. She sought reclassification and emergency assistance due to worsened conditions and exhaustion of indemnity benefits. The Board denied her request, finding insufficient evidence of a material change in condition and untimely filing for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of medical documentation to support a change in her condition and her failure to meet the requirements for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3).

Reopening claimsPermanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityIndemnity benefitsExtreme hardshipReclassificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewMedical evidenceChange in condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Bauman v. Chili Furniture & Appliances, Inc.

This case involves an appeal that reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which had discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability. The claimant, who suffered the loss of a leg in a 1964 work-related accident, required recurring replacement of his prosthetic device, with medical reports from 1976 and 1978 also indicating an abscess and pressure area on his stump. The Board reopened the case based on these reports, concluding they signified a "change in condition" within three years of the last compensation payment, thereby exempting the Special Fund. However, the Appellate Division determined that the need for prosthesis replacement is a continuing requirement and not a new medical condition for the purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The court further found that the medical reports did not clearly indicate a new or changed condition beyond the claimant's continuing disability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed for lacking a rational basis, and the matter was remitted for additional proceedings.

Prosthetic Device ReplacementWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened Cases LiabilityChange in ConditionMedical Report InterpretationNotice to BoardContinuing DisabilityAppellate DivisionRemittalAbscess on Stump
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Avila v. St. Francis Hospital

In this Workers' Compensation case, the claimant, an orderly, sustained a low back injury in 1965 while employed by St. Francis Hospital. Initially diagnosed with a lumbo-sacral strain and an unstable back, a lump-sum settlement was approved in 1969 based on a mild causally related partial disability. Nearly a decade later, in 1978, the claimant applied to reopen the settlement due to severe leg pain and a confirmed extruded disc at L5-S1, requiring a laminectomy. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Law Judge's finding, determining that there was a change in condition and degree of disability not contemplated at the time of the original settlement. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases appealed this decision, arguing against the reopening. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing that the definitive change from a mild disability to a herniated disc requiring surgery was an uncontemplated medical condition change, justifying the reopening under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-b).

Reopened CaseLump-Sum SettlementPermanent Partial DisabilityHerniated Lumbar DiscLaminectomyChange of ConditionUncontemplated Medical ConditionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Claim of Bunnell v. Sangerfield Inn

Claimant, after sustaining work-related back injuries in February 1992 and receiving an $85,000 lump-sum settlement in 1998, sought to reopen his workers' compensation claim in May 2002. He cited worsened medical symptoms, an increased degree of disability, and requested to include a groin condition and consequential depression in his covered injuries. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied his application, ruling that the medical evidence failed to demonstrate an unanticipated change in his medical condition or degree of disability that was not contemplated at the time of the initial lump-sum adjustment. The Board's decision, which involved resolving conflicting medical evidence and concluded there was no unanticipated change, was subsequently affirmed on appeal, as it was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump-sum SettlementClaim ReopeningMedical ConditionDisability AssessmentBack InjuryDepressionDegenerative Disc DiseaseSubstantial EvidenceBoard Discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1980

In re the Claim of Saintel v. St. Vincent's Hospital

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, dated February 25, 1980, regarding a claimant's back injury. The primary issue was whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that a change in the claimant’s condition was unforeseen at the time a lump-sum nonschedule adjustment of $11,200 closed the case on June 4, 1973. Following a motion, the case was reopened on June 29, 1978. The Board, citing Dr. Krause's C-71 report from February 28, 1979, and Dr. Folk's testimony, concluded that a new, uncontemplated change in the claimant’s causally related condition had occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate evidentiary support.

Back InjuryDisc Removal SurgeryLump-Sum SettlementNonschedule AdjustmentReopened CaseChange in ConditionSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,522 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