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 Denman v. Cobbler's Restaurant

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2003, leading to workers' compensation benefits. In July 2011, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the claimant had misrepresented her disabilities to influence benefit determinations, despite being totally disabled. This finding was based on hearing testimony and surveillance videos. Consequently, the WCLJ imposed a discretionary penalty, reducing her weekly benefits for one year. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s determination, concluding that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence derived from the claimant's testimony and the surveillance videos.

Misrepresentation of DisabilitySurveillance Video EvidenceDiscretionary PenaltyBenefit ReductionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWitness CredibilityIndependent Medical ExaminationTotal Disability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nassar v. Masri Furniture & Merchandise, Inc.

The employer challenged the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for a causal link between the claimant's injury and employment. However, testimony from the claimant and a coworker confirmed the claimant sustained back and neck injuries while lifting furniture for the employer, leading to a cessation of work due to persistent pain. The court emphasized that any testimonial inconsistencies created a credibility matter for the Board to resolve, noting its independence from the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's findings. Crucially, uncontradicted medical evidence corroborated the causal relationship between the workplace injury and the claimant's disability. Consequently, the Board’s decisions were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueBoard DecisionMedical EvidenceBack InjuryNeck InjuryLifting FurnitureEmployment Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ouderkirk v. Nestle Food Co.

Claimant suffered a work-related back injury in 1998, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2006. In 2012, an orthopedic surgeon found total disability, leading to surgery and a proposed weekly compensation rate. The Special Fund objected, seeking claimant's testimony on labor market attachment, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the request and awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, finding involuntary separation from the labor market in 2003 due to the injury, negating the need for testimony. The appellate court reversed, citing a lack of substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant retired in 2003 due to the compensable injury, and prejudiced the Special Fund by denying testimony. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalDisability RetirementSpecial FundSubstantial EvidencePrejudiced PartyRemittalTestimony Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2003

Claim of Ellis v. Cleanorama

Claimant alleged injury from a chemical spill at her dry cleaning job in May 1999, which resulted in swelling and burning of her hands, face, and right leg. She applied for workers’ compensation benefits after being terminated in April 2000. The employer controverted the claim, stating the chemical (percethalane) was used in a closed system and claimant’s job duties did not involve contact with it, further noting she did not report the alleged exposure. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge credited the employer’s testimony and disallowed the claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision, highlighting conflicting testimonies and medical documentation that did not fully substantiate the claimant's version of events, thereby affirming the denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationChemical ExposureCredibility DeterminationWork-Related InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewConflicting TestimonyBoard DecisionDry Cleaning IndustryOccupational Hazard
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterec-Tolino v. Commercial Electrical Contractors, Inc.

The claimant, an apprentice employed by Commercial Electrical Contractors, Inc., was terminated after allegedly threatening a project superintendent. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, citing a neck and back injury sustained prior to his termination. The claim proceeded under an Alternate Dispute Resolution program, where an arbitrator ultimately disallowed it, concluding it was an afterthought following the claimant's termination. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the arbitrator's ruling, emphasizing that arbitration awards should only be vacated in limited circumstances such as fraud, corruption, misconduct, or if the award is irrational or exceeds the arbitrator's power. The court found the arbitrator's determination rational and supported by testimony, dismissing the claimant's allegations of fraudulent testimony and arbitrator misconduct as credibility issues appropriately resolved by the arbitrator.

Arbitration AwardCredibility DisputeCompensable InjuryAppellate ReviewFraud AllegationMisconduct AllegationAlternate Dispute ResolutionNeck InjuryBack InjuryEmployer Termination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 1978

Claim of Rice v. Kavanagh Trucking Co.

On August 19, 1975, a truck driver experienced a numbing sensation and passed out twice while driving. He was later diagnosed with a myocardial infarction. The Workers' Compensation Board found that his work on that day constituted an accident within the meaning of the law, resulting in a causally related myocardial infarction. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, contending a lack of substantial evidence to support the findings of accident and causal relationship, asserting the claimant did not perform unusual work and medical testimony was insufficient. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strenuous work is relative to an individual's cardiac reserve and that the Board appropriately accepted the medical testimony supporting its conclusion that the claimant's work required sufficient physical exertion to cause the injury.

myocardial infarctiontruck driverphysical exertioncausal relationshipcardiac eventinadequate cardiac reserveworkers' compensation boardmedical expert testimonyappellate reviewsubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

El Hassanein v. Yankee Stop Corp.

Claimant alleged an injury at Yankee Stop Corporation's delicatessen on January 23, 2005, and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially denied the claim, ruling no employer-employee relationship existed. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision even after reopening the record for further evidence. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence in the testimony of Yankee's owners, who denied claimant's employment, despite conflicting evidence. The court concluded that the Board was entitled to credit the owners' testimony and dismissed the claimant's allegations of WCLJ bias.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceFactual DeterminationCredibility of TestimonyAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardDenial of BenefitsJudicial Bias ClaimDelicatessen Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpullo v. Alba Barber Shop

The claimant, a barber, appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which dismissed his claim for a detached retina. He alleged the injury occurred in September 1958 when he struck his eye on a barber chair headrest. Despite Dr. Jaffe's testimony suggesting a causal link, the Board found the claim to be an 'afterthought' and rejected the claimant's testimony regarding the accident. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that issues of credibility are within the Board's discretion and they were not legally bound to accept the claimant's account.

Detached RetinaBarber InjuryEmployment InjuryCausal RelationshipCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMedical EvidenceOccupational AccidentWorkmen's Compensation Board Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

Claim of Petit v. Syracuse Housing Authority

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that found the claimant did not violate Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly misrepresenting a material fact. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed this finding. The court upheld the Board’s determination, stating that the claimant’s sworn testimony was consistent with video surveillance and investigator testimony, thus constituting substantial evidence. The claimant provided explanations for activities shown in surveillance that were seemingly inconsistent with his reported disability, but the court found he did not testify falsely. Therefore, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationDisability BenefitsSurveillance EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceMedical Examiner OpinionClaimant CredibilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,800 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