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 Cramer v. Barney's Clothing Store

A claimant appealed an award for disability due to a myocardial infarction. The board found that an argument with his supervisor about pay led to severe chest pain, and medical evidence supported that excitement from the argument, superimposed on a prior cardiac condition, caused the infarction. The claimant testified to a 20-minute argument with his assistant manager about overtime pay, during which he threatened to go home and experienced chest pains. The court, however, found no legally sufficient basis for the board's finding of an accident, stating the situation did not involve emotional tension greater than typical workplace irritations and was not exceptional enough to meet established legal tests for accident. Consequently, the decision and award were reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

myocardial infarctionworkplace argumentemotional stressworkers' compensationcardiac pathologydisability awardlegal precedentmedical evidenceappealboard finding
References
3
Case No. CV-23-0279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Monique Lewis

The case involves Monique Lewis, a social worker, who sustained a chest injury and alleged psychological injuries after being attacked by a dog during a home visit. The Workers' Compensation Board initially disallowed her claim for psychological injuries, applying a standard that required stress greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed this decision. It ruled that since a workplace accident with physical impact was established for the chest injury, the Board erred in applying the "greater stress" standard for direct psychological injuries resulting from the same incident. The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the causal connection between the accident and the claimed psychological conditions, including PTSD, anxiety, and acute stress disorder.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryPTSDAnxietyAcute Stress DisorderPhysical ImpactWorkplace AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewSocial Worker
References
9
Case No. 231 AD3d 1379
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Matter of Lewis v. NYC Admin. for Children Servs.

Claimant Monique Lewis, a social worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits after a dog charged at her during a home visit, causing a chest injury and psychological trauma including PTSD. Initially, the employer accepted the chest injury, and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the psychological injuries. However, the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently disallowed the psychological claim, ruling that the stress experienced was not greater than that of similarly situated workers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that the 'greater stress' standard does not apply when psychological injuries directly result from a workplace accident involving physical impact. The court remitted the matter to the Board to determine the causal connection between the established workplace accident and the alleged psychological injuries.

Psychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderAnxietyAcute Stress DisorderWorkplace AccidentPhysical ImpactCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewRemittalDog Attack
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1970

Claim of Melillo v. La Sala Contracting Co.

The decedent, while engaged in strenuous work, complained of chest pain, collapsed, and died shortly after. His widow, Jean Melillo, filed a claim for death benefits, which was controverted by Annette Melillo, who also asserted to be the legal widow. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that the decedent’s strenuous work activity, combined with continuing to work despite chest pains, constituted an accidental injury leading to his death. The Board also determined Jean Melillo to be the lawful widow entitled to benefits. Annette Melillo appealed this decision, but her appeal was considered abandoned due to failure to file a brief. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, citing substantial medical evidence supporting the causal relationship between the decedent's continued work after the onset of symptoms and his death.

Worker's CompensationAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsWidow DisputeStrenuous WorkMedical EvidenceAppeal AbandonedBoard FindingsChest Pain
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1995

Claim of Tomlin v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

The claimant, a site manager for 23 years, began experiencing chest pains in February 1984. His employer granted him a medical leave and requested documentation. The claimant's treating physician, Patrick McAndrew, diagnosed essential hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chest pain of undetermined origin. The employer then used a disability claim form as a claim for a self-administered salary continuation plan, paying benefits under it. After an examination by the employer's physician, John Walters, who found no organic heart disease, the employer terminated the claimant, considering his absence a voluntary termination due to lack of a "bona fide" disability. The claimant subsequently filed for statutory disability benefits and a claim for discriminatory discharge with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 241 for retaliation. The Board asserted jurisdiction, found discrimination, but reduced damages due to the claimant's failure to actively seek employment. The employer appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence, but the decision was affirmed.

References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DePoalo v. County of Schenectady

This case involves two correction officers, Philip DePoalo and Alfred Greenewald, employed by the County of Schenectady, who sought benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c for work-related illnesses. DePoalo suffered chest pains due to a pre-existing heart condition, which his personal physician attributed to job-related stress. Greenewald experienced chest pains while on duty, diagnosed as a hiatal hernia, but lacked clear evidence connecting it to his employment. The County denied their applications, with DePoalo's denial partly due to his refusal of a county-scheduled medical examination. The Supreme Court initially granted the petitions, ruling against the county's authority to require a pre-determination medical examination for eligibility. However, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that General Municipal Law § 207-c authorizes municipalities to direct applicants to undergo medical examinations to establish a work-related disability before benefits are awarded, to prevent fraudulent claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the statute's plain wording and legislative history support the municipality's right to determine eligibility through a medical exam.

General Municipal Law § 207-cMedical Examination RequirementEligibility for BenefitsCorrection OfficersWork-Related IllnessPre-determination ExaminationMunicipal AuthorityStatutory InterpretationCardiac ConditionsHiatal Hernia
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1984

Claim of Carpino v. Treasure Chest Restaurant

Claimant's husband, a chef, suffered a heart attack at work and a fatal second heart attack five days after release from the hospital. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his work efforts precipitated the heart attack and his subsequent death was causally related to his employment, awarding death benefits. The employer appealed, arguing a preexisting coronary artery disease and insufficient notice, citing the need for more strenuous work than ordinary life. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the decedent's job required long hours, a hot kitchen, and heavy lifting, which was strenuous for him. The court noted that the Board is free to choose among conflicting expert medical opinions regarding causal relationship, and their decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackCausal RelationshipStrenuous WorkPreexisting ConditionExpert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceDeath BenefitsNoticeAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Knisell v. Treasure Chest Advertising Co.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury on October 12, 1999. Initially reporting an injury to her left arm, she later experienced neck pain and sought workers' compensation benefits for injury to her left arm, shoulder, and neck. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially barred the neck injury claim due to a failure to provide timely notice to the employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the employer was aware of the neck, arm, and shoulder injury on the date of the accident. The employer appealed the Board's reversal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion of employer awareness was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementCausally Related InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryArm InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalEmployer Knowledge
References
1
Case No. ADJ3209553 (VNO 0530530) ADJ790950 (VNO 0530529)
Regular
Oct 28, 2009

PATRICIA SHORTER vs. THE HELP GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding no medical evidence to support applicant's claims of injury to the psyche, chest, deep vein thrombosis, or right arm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDENYING RECONSIDERATIONADMITTED INJURYPSYCHE CLAIMLOWER EXTREMITIESDEEP VEIN THROMBOSISINDUSTRIAL CAUSATIONTREATING CHIROPRACTORQUALIFIED MEDICAL EVALUATORPQME
References
0
Case No. STK 189258
Regular
Jul 16, 2007

JUAN CARLOS SOLANO vs. FARIA DAIRY, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the admissibility of medical reports due to a clerical error in exhibit designations. The Board affirmed the original Finding and Order, which denied the applicant's claim for industrial injury to his pulmonary system, chest, and psyche. The amended order simply corrected the exhibit numbers for specific medical reports.

WCABreconsiderationindustrial injurypulmonary systempsychemilkerFaria DairyZenith Insuranceadministrative law judgeclerical error
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 74 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