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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05261 [187 AD3d 1252]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Workers' Compensation Bd. of the State of N.Y. v. Williams Auto Parts Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board imposed a penalty on Williams Auto Parts Inc. and its president, Joseph Williams, for failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage. Following nonpayment, the Board obtained a judgment against them, which defendants subsequently moved to vacate in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the entry of judgment by the County Clerk was a ministerial act and that only the Appellate Division holds the authority to review final determinations of the Workers' Compensation Board prior to judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentFailure to Secure CoverageJudgment VacaturSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate DivisionMinisterial ActStatutory InterpretationExclusive JurisdictionDue Process
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09336 [178 AD3d 1312]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2019

Matter of Trusewicz v. Delta Envtl.

Claimant Roman Trusewicz filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries from prolonged asbestos handling, having previously received treatment for the same body parts. At a hearing, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed him to provide an open-ended HIPAA medical release for all treatment records, despite his request to limit it to only the claimed sites of injury. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, holding that the Board erred by requiring an unlimited medical release, as regulations specify that only a limited release for relevant medical records regarding the prior medical history of the body part or illness at issue is required.

Workers' compensationmedical recordsHIPAA releaseprior injurylimited releaseunlimited releaseemployer's rightsclaimant's rightsmedical treatmentBoard decision
References
2
Case No. CV-23-1472
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jacquetta Brooks

Claimant Jacquetta Brooks appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled she was entitled to a 0% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her right arm, leg, and foot. This decision reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's award of higher SLU percentages. The core of the dispute was the Board's interpretation of guidelines regarding the appropriateness of comparing injured body parts to previously injured contralateral (opposite) body parts for SLU assessment. The Appellate Division found the Board's interpretation, which limited inappropriate comparisons only to permanent contralateral impairments, to be unreasonable. The Court reversed the Board's decision, finding that temporary physical or functional impairments also make contralateral comparisons inappropriate, and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseContralateral ComparisonMedical Impairment GuidelinesOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewRemittalRange of MotionJudicial InterpretationPermanent Impairment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1980

Fitch v. Jake Nussbaum Auto Parts, Inc.

On November 11, 1976, the claimant, an auto parts deliveryman, experienced chest pains and suffered a myocardial infarction while performing his duties. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge allowed the compensation claim. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board, after considering conflicting medical opinions including an impartial cardiologist, disallowed the claim. The Board's decision was based on substantial evidence indicating no causal relationship between the claimant's work and the infarction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's disallowance, noting that prior cases did not mandate a finding of compensability.

Myocardial InfarctionCausal RelationshipConflicting Medical OpinionSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard DisallowanceAppellate AffirmanceCardiac EventWork-Related StressClaimant's Burden of ProofMedical Expert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Winters v. Advance Auto Parts

Claimant, injured while working for Advance Auto Parts and subsequently for LKQ Broadway Used Auto Parts, was terminated from LKQ for absenteeism. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that his separation was due to his injury, ruling that he voluntarily removed himself from the labor market due to insufficient evidence of attachment. This court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board erred by requiring documentation for participation in a job-location service (One-Stop Career Centers) despite finding the claimant's testimony credible. The court emphasized that the Board failed to adequately explain its departure from prior precedent, which accepted credible testimony without documentation for such services. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalAbsenteeism TerminationCredible TestimonyDocumentary Evidence RequirementOne-Stop Career CentersVocational RehabilitationBoard PrecedentArbitrary Decision
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06424 [188 AD3d 1381]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Hluska v. Central New York Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Kevin Hluska, who previously received a 13% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm due to a 2016 shoulder injury, sustained a new work-related injury to his left elbow in 2017. His physician determined this new injury resulted in a 10% SLU of the left arm. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the previous SLU award for the same arm exceeded the current impairment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3), which limits SLU awards for permanent impairments to specific body parts and allows for multiple awards only if for more than one member or parts of more than one member, but the total award for a member is capped.

Schedule Loss of UseSLU AwardLeft Arm InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Division Third DepartmentPermanent ImpairmentPrior AwardSubsequent Injury
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04221 [185 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Kleban v. Central NY Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Derek Kleban sustained a right shoulder injury in 2013, for which he received a 28.75% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his right arm. In 2017, he suffered a work-related injury to his right elbow, with his physician finding a 20% SLU of the right elbow. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the prior SLU award for the right arm exceeded the current 20% SLU. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) and prior precedents, which limit SLU awards based on the injured body member and degree of impairment, and allow multiple awards only for loss of use of more than one member or parts thereof, but not when a subsequent injury to a part of a previously awarded larger member results in a lower SLU.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' Compensation BenefitsRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryImpairment RatingPrior AwardSubsequent InjuryAppellate DecisionAffirmationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stromski v. Jefferson Auto Body

The claimant, an auto body repairer for 27 years, sought workers' compensation benefits for stomach cancer, attributing it to occupational exposure to chromium and talc. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding that his disease was not causally related to his occupation after resolving conflicting expert medical testimony against him. The Board credited the carrier's expert, an internal medicine specialist, who testified that studies only link a specific type of chromium to carcinogenicity in the upper respiratory tract, not stomach cancer. This expert testimony successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicts in medical testimony, particularly regarding causation, falls within the Board's province. Additionally, the claimant's appeal from the denial of reconsideration was deemed abandoned.

Occupational DiseaseStomach CancerCausationMedical Expert TestimonyChromium ExposureTalc ExposureBurden of ProofStatutory PresumptionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Snyder v. Bette Cring

A claimant, employed by a construction company, sustained work-related injuries to his left wrist and left shoulder, leading to workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier contested this, alleging the claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by not disclosing prior similar injuries to the same body parts. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found no violation, accepting the claimant's explanation that he differentiated between 'pain' and 'injury'. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant did not knowingly make false statements regarding a material fact.

Workers' CompensationFalse StatementMaterial FactClaimant CredibilityPrior Injury DisclosureSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAffirmed DecisionDisability Benefits
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 21,953 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