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
Jun 02, 1997

Claim of Crawford v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant who sustained a finger injury from a hypodermic needle in 1987. After an initial workers' compensation award, the case was reopened in 1993 when the claimant asserted a claim for a consequential posttraumatic neurosis or 'AIDS reaction phobia'. The employer argued that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 barred the psychiatric claim. However, the Board rejected this argument and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision to address the psychiatric condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Section 28 does not bar amendment of a timely claim to include consequential injuries if a relationship exists between the subsequent claim and the initial injury.

Psychiatric Injury ClaimStatute of Limitations Workers' CompConsequential Psychological InjuriesHypodermic Needle InjuryAIDS Reaction PhobiaWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSection 28 BarAmendment of Timely ClaimCausally Related Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kessler v. Fairmont Theater, Inc.

Claimant, employed for two days in 1986 as a projectionist, sought workers' compensation benefits for psychiatric injury and eye injury. He alleged harassment from his employer and supervisor caused a nervous breakdown, and projector light injured his eyes. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge dismissed the psychiatric injury claim but found prima facie evidence for vision impairment, remitting that part for further development. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled against the psychiatric trauma claim, a decision supported by employer and supervisor testimony denying harassment and claimant's psychiatrist confirming prior psychiatric issues. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was based on substantial evidence and that issues of credibility are within the Board's purview.

Psychiatric InjuryNervous BreakdownEye InjuryEmployment TerminationIntoxicationHarassmentCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Regenbogen v. New York State Willard Psychiatric Center

The case involves an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim for mental injury filed by a former employee of Willard Psychiatric Center, who later worked for the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claim, initially found compensable, faced jurisdictional challenges after a March 1997 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (2) (a) mandated neutral arbitration for Board employees' claims pending on or after its effective date. The court found that the Workers’ Compensation Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its June 1997 amended decision because the claim was still 'pending' after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the entire matter for arbitration, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to remove any appearance of partiality in such claims.

Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictional DisputeRetroactive Application of LawStatutory AmendmentArbitration MandateMental Stress ClaimAppellate ProcedurePending ClaimsBoard Employee ClaimsAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2002

Claim of Adames v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.

The claimant, an exercise rider, injured his ankle after his license expired but before he could renew it due to a system delay. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him to be a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The fund and its carrier appealed, arguing that an expired license should preclude coverage. The court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting relevant statutes to ensure blanket coverage for jockeys and exercise persons, noting that denying coverage in such circumstances would defeat the legislative intent of timely compensation for injured workers.

Exercise RiderExpired LicenseStatutory InterpretationEmployee StatusJockey Injury Compensation FundRacing LawLegislative IntentTimely CompensationBlanket CoverageAdministrative Deference
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mott v. Central New York Psychiatric Center

The claimant, a guard at a state-run psychiatric center, suffered a work-related injury and received workers’ compensation benefits. During his disability, he used personal leave time for which he received full wages. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement for the personal leave portion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, differentiating personal leave from sick leave by noting that personal leave could not be accrued or converted, thus not conferring a permanent benefit to the employer or a detriment to the claimant. The court concluded that denying reimbursement would result in the claimant receiving both full wages and compensation for the same period, a disfavored outcome, and therefore, reimbursement should be granted.

ReimbursementAdvance PaymentsPersonal LeaveSick LeaveWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisabilityEmployer ReimbursementDisproportionate ResultAppellate DivisionNew York
References
9
Case No. ADJ1315350 (VNO 0557111)
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

LINDA KAMBOW vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by an inmate laborer for orthopedic and psychiatric injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reimbursement to Hepps Pharmacy for medications, as no prescription was provided. The Board also reversed an award to Southern California Mental Health Associates for psychiatric treatment, ruling that inmate psychiatric injuries are not compensable under Labor Code section 3208.3(j). The Board found that the psychiatric injury was a consequence of the industrial orthopedic injury, and thus not a compensable independent non-industrial condition requiring treatment to relieve orthopedic effects.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric injuryLabor Code 3208.3(j)Inmate laborerIndustrial orthopedic injuryNon-industrial psychiatric treatmentPrimary treating physicianSubstantial medical evidenceCompromise and Release AgreementLien trial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aminov v. New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.

Claimant, a black car operator for the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., sustained injuries when his limousine was struck by another vehicle. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that his injuries were compensable, having occurred while performing 'covered services.' The employer and the State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that without a specific assignment, claimant was not performing covered services. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that logging onto the employer's website and driving to an area with high fare activity to increase chances of an assignment was sufficient to constitute performing covered services under Executive Law § 160-cc (4).

Black Car OperatorAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCovered ServicesDispatch InterpretationLog-on ActivityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityInsurance Fund
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 25,173 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