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

Scodary v. Serritella

Claimant established a work-related neck and left arm injury, receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a brief period in December 2003. Her employment was terminated in January 2004, leading to new issues regarding further causally related disability, consequential depression, and withdrawal from the labor market. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for consequential depression, asserting that her psychologist's treatment lacked the required referral from an authorized physician under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-m (2) (a). The appellate court ruled this exclusion of evidence was an error, stating the statute does not create an evidentiary barrier to a psychologist's testimony and records, even without a physician referral. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the exclusion of evidence for consequential depression, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsConsequential DepressionPsychologist TestimonyReferral RequirementEvidentiary StandardsCausally Related DisabilityLoss of EarningsAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2005

Claim of Jones v. New York State Department of Correction

The claimant, a bus driver for the New York City Department of Correction, sustained work-related injuries to her right shoulder and back in September 1998. After surgery in 1999, she sought treatment in 2001 for left shoulder pain, alleging it was a consequential injury from favoring her right shoulder. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related consequential injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to make its own factual findings and resolve conflicting medical evidence. The Board found the self-insured employer’s medical consultant more credible than the claimant’s physician, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionCausal RelationshipConsequential InjuryCredibility of WitnessesConflicting Medical EvidenceShoulder InjuriesBus DriverNew York City Department of CorrectionAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1984

Coakley v. General Motors Corp. Harrison Radiator Division

The claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1968, resulting in a schedule award, and retired in 1975. In 1980, she suffered a consequential injury to her right leg, held to be the responsibility of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A schedule award was established in 1983 based on the consequential injury date. The claimant sought a penalty against the Special Fund, arguing the compensation rate should be based on the consequential injury date, not the original injury date. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the rate for a consequential injury is determined by the rate applicable at the time of the origin of the injury and modified the award accordingly. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that a consequential injury emanates solely from the original injury, and the pertinent rate of compensation should be measured by the original period.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjurySchedule AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensation RateOriginal Injury DateRetirementAppellate ReviewJurisdictional CorrectionNew York Workers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. 533488
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Blanch v. Delta Air Lines

Claimant Portia Blanch, a flight attendant for Delta Air Lines, sustained a head injury in June 2018. Her claim was initially established for a head injury, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied her request to amend the claim to include consequential postconcussion syndrome with associated headaches and anxiety, finding a lack of causal nexus. The Board also determined that the claimant had voluntarily removed herself from the labor market. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the denial of the amendment and the voluntary removal from the labor market. However, the court modified the decision, holding that the Board erred in rescinding indemnity benefits for the period of July 7, 2018, through July 12, 2020, as the date of lack of labor market attachment should be July 13, 2020, and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this modification.

Head InjuryPost-concussion SyndromeLabor Market AttachmentMedical CausationExpert Witness TestimonyClaimant CredibilityAppellate DivisionIndemnity BenefitsTemporary Total DisabilityConsequential Injury
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04342 [151 AD3d 1154]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Claim of Pereira-Jersey v. Rockland Community College

Renee Pereira-Jersey, a purchasing agent, filed for workers' compensation benefits in February 2008 due to conditions like breathing difficulties and headaches resulting from workplace mold exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established a work-related injury, later amending the claim to include a consequential cognitive adjustment disorder and awarding reduced earnings for a three-day work week, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer, Rockland Community College, repeatedly challenged further reduced earnings awards. However, the WCLJ and Board found substantial evidence supporting claimant's causally-related disability preventing full-time work. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no abuse of discretion in the Board not considering an issue not raised before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMold Exposure InjuryReduced EarningsCognitive ImpairmentOccupational AsthmaChronic SinusitisToxic EncephalopathyAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
8
Case No. 533488
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Portia Blanch

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant, Portia Blanch, a flight attendant, sustained a head injury at work. Her claim was established for a work-related head injury, and she received temporary total indemnity benefits. She sought to amend her claim to include consequential postconcussion syndrome with associated headaches and anxiety, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed, finding no causal relation. The WCLJ also found she voluntarily removed herself from the labor market after July 6, 2018, thus suffering no compensable lost time from July 7, 2018. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision regarding the causal nexus and the voluntary removal from the labor market, deferring to the Board's credibility assessments, especially regarding the medical opinions of Dr. Bragg. However, the Appellate Division modified the Board's decision, ruling that the finding of no labor market attachment should apply from July 13, 2020 (when evidence was submitted) rather than July 6, 2018, thereby reversing the rescission of indemnity benefits for the period July 7, 2018, through July 12, 2020, and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPostconcussion SyndromeLabor Market AttachmentCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndemnity BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility DeterminationNeurological Injury
References
19
Case No. CV-23-0524
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Becker v. United Cerebral Palsy Assoc.

Claimant Sofia Becker injured her right ankle in December 2000, leading to an established workers' compensation claim and consequential injuries to her left wrist and both knees with assigned schedule loss of use. In September 2021, claimant fell at home, injuring her left elbow, and sought to amend her claim to include this as a consequential injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found prima facie medical evidence for the consequential injury but later disallowed the claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board). The Board determined the left elbow injury was a regular, unrelated slip-and-fall accident, lacking a consequential causal relationship to her prior established injuries. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence due to the absence of medical opinion linking the elbow injury to prior compensable injuries and conflicting independent medical examination findings.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceSchedule Loss of UseSlip and FallBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentOrthopedic Injury
References
7
Case No. GRO 0029797
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

MARLENA MOORE vs. ALBERTSONS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record regarding applicant's headaches. While the applicant's injury to her neck and right shoulder was affirmed, the WCJ's denial of injury to bilateral upper extremities and headaches was modified. The case is remanded for further proceedings specifically on the industrial causation of the applicant's headaches.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarlena MooreAlbertsonsSpecialty Risk ServicesGRO 0029797Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryBilateral Upper Extremities
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barre v. Roofing & Flooring, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a consequential injury claim. The claimant, a roofer, suffered a compensable accident in 1966. In 1976, while working as an independent contractor to facilitate a lump-sum settlement for his earlier injury, he sustained a second severe injury due to a fall. Initially, a referee disallowed the claim that the 1966 injury contributed to the 1976 accident. However, the Board reversed this, finding, based on Dr. Flood's testimony about the claimant's dizzy spells, that the second injury was causally related and consequential to the first. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of a consequential injury.

Workers' Compensation LawConsequential InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyDizzy SpellsLump-Sum SettlementIndependent ContractorBoard ReversalAppellate AffirmationRoofer Accident
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 260 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