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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanDermark v. Frontier Insurance

In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer and its carrier challenged two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's permanent total disability. The claimant sustained a back injury in 1998 and was initially found to have a permanent partial disability. However, the Board later modified the award, concluding the claimant had a permanent total disability after August 2004, a finding supported by the testimony of her treating orthopedic surgeon despite conflicting medical evidence. The employer also contested the denial of their applications for reconsideration and/or full Board review, arguing insufficient evidence and an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no arbitrary or capricious action in denying reconsideration, as no new evidence was presented.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard's DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Casucci v. Community Carting Co.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding death benefits for the decedent, husband of the claimant, who died from a coronary artery thrombosis. Initially, the Board denied benefits, but an appeal led to reversal and remittal for further evidence on the decedent's work activities, which included heavy lifting. Despite conflicting medical testimony, the Board found the decedent's work efforts contributed to his death, affirming an award of death benefits. Appellants challenged this finding, arguing a lack of evidence of strenuous effort on the death date. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board could reasonably infer facts, and the medical conflict was a matter for the Board's resolution, supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCoronary Artery ThrombosisMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCausationScope of Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Boyuk v. Triad Retail Media

Claimant, an office manager, sought workers' compensation benefits for asthma allegedly contracted on November 3, 2014, due to exposure to aromatherapy fragrances at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, finding a causally-related occupational injury. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant did not sustain a causally-related respiratory injury. Medical evidence presented conflicting views: Dr. Evelyn Tolston diagnosed causally related occupational asthma, while Dr. Monroe Karetzky found no objective pulmonary disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and evaluation of witness credibility, and concluding that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation AppealOccupational InjuryAsthma ClaimCausally Related InjuryMedical Evidence ConflictIndependent Medical ExaminationRespiratory ConditionFragrance ExposureBoard Decision AffirmedSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co.

This is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed December 1, 1994, which ruled that the claimant had no further causally related disability subsequent to October 23, 1989. The claimant was injured in 1986 and received benefits until 1989, but sought additional compensation for persistent back pain. The Board dismissed the claim, finding insufficient credible evidence of causality. Conflicting medical testimonies from physicians Richard Dellaporta, Sewall Miller, and Harry Cole were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that resolving conflicts in medical testimony is within the Board's province and that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. The claimant's contention regarding the presumption of causal relationship under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (5) was also rejected, as countervailing substantial evidence was presented.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceAppellate ReviewPresumption of CausalityWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(5)Back Pain InjuryBoard Decision AffirmationExpert Witnesses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cantelmo v. New York State Comptroller

The petitioner, a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, applied for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits, including World Trade Center accidental disability benefits, following diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied the applications, concluding the petitioner was not permanently disabled. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with the petitioner's experts diagnosing permanent PTSD disability and the Retirement System's psychiatrist diagnosing a treatable major depressive disorder. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, stating that the Comptroller has the authority to resolve conflicts in medical evidence and that the Retirement System's expert provided a rational and fact-based opinion, thus supporting the determination with substantial evidence.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice OfficerPTSDWorld Trade Center AttackComptroller's DeterminationMedical Evidence ConflictPermanent IncapacityPsychiatric EvaluationArticle 78 ProceedingNew York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System
References
6
Case No. ADJ10870145, ADJ8277957
Regular
Jan 30, 2023

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. PORTERVILLE SHELTERED WORKSHOP, MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CLAIMS MGMT., TREE & SIERRA MGMT., SIERRA MGMT., CIGA, INTERCARE HOLDINGS, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury while employed by both Sierra Management and Porterville Sheltered Workshop. This decision was based on the WCJ adopting the opinion of Dr. Bernhard, which was found to be substantial evidence despite conflicting medical opinions. The Board affirmed that a single physician's considered opinion can suffice as substantial evidence, even if it contradicts other medical findings. The Petitioner's arguments regarding the WCJ's reasoning and conflicting medical opinions were rejected.

ADJ10870145ADJ8277957Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Opinionsubstantial evidencephysician opinioncumulative injuryCIGAManufacturers Alliance Insurance Company
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1995

Claim of Connelly v. Connelly

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from November 2, 1995, which found no causal relationship between the decedent's death and his employment as a workers' compensation attorney. The 55-year-old decedent, who had a history of hypertension and obesity, died from an acute vascular event or stroke. Medical experts presented conflicting testimony regarding the cause of death, with claimant's experts attributing it to work-related stress and the carrier's expert to untreated health conditions. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board's resolution of conflicting medical evidence was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipEmployment-related DeathStrokeHypertensionObesityMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Karatas v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 29, 1991, which denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits on the grounds that she did not sustain a causally related disability to her spine. Expert medical evidence, including testimony from an impartial specialist appointed by the Board, indicated that the claimant's disability was not casually related to her employment. This testimony provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding. The appellate court noted that any conflicting medical opinion presented does not alter the result, as such conflicts are to be resolved by the Board. Consequently, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed without costs.

Causal RelationshipMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewBoard FindingsConflicting Medical OpinionAffirmed DecisionSpinal Disability
References
4
Case No. CV-22-2147
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Marie Seide

Claimant Marie Seide, a nurse technician, sustained work-related physical and psychological injuries in 2016. Her workers' compensation claim was established, but she disputed the Workers' Compensation Board's finding of a 62.5% temporary partial disability, asserting she had a total disability. The Board's decision, which affirmed a WCLJ's finding, was based on conflicting medical evidence from multiple professionals. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions and its determination of the degree of disablement were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityDegree of DisablementConflicting Medical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical ExpertsPsychological InjuryOrthopedic InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,946 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