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
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related slip and fall in 2002, leading to injuries including his head, neck, back, and knees. His morbid obesity contributed to his back and knee issues, prompting him to seek authorization for gastric bypass surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge approved the surgery, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the surgery causally related to the compensable injuries. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the causal link. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting substantial evidence that the claimant's weight gain was a result of the sedentary lifestyle imposed by his injuries, and that the surgery would aid in his recovery.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryGastric Bypass SurgeryMorbid ObesityMedical Treatment AuthorizationCausationKnee InjuryBack InjurySedentary LifestyleBoard Decision Appeal
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucci v. Kimball

Claimant, a nursery school teacher, sustained a work-related lower back injury in December 1974, leading to permanent partial disability and workers’ compensation benefits. Following a second laminectomy in 1993, she developed worsening urinary incontinence. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a finding that claimant was totally disabled due to this condition, deeming it a consequence of her original work-related injury. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that while conflicting medical opinions existed, the neurologist’s testimony provided substantial evidence to support the finding of total disability stemming from the 1974 injury.

work-related injurylower back injuryurinary incontinencepermanent partial disabilitytotal disabilitylaminectomymedical opinionsneurologist testimonysubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ1991870
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

TOM DRENNAN vs. SUPERIOR INSPECTION SERVICES, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's award finding industrial injury to the applicant's left knee, both hips, and gastrointestinal system as consequential to an admitted right knee injury. The defendant argues that a prior 2005 WCJ decision denying consequential injury to the left knee and hips is res judicata. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the award to remove the left knee and hip injuries, holding that the 2005 decision was final and the five-year time limit to reopen under Labor Code sections 5410 and 5804 had passed. The finding of consequential injury to the gastrointestinal system and 29% permanent disability remain affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompensable ConsequencesRes JudicataIndustrial InjuryLeft KneeHipsGastrointestinal SystemPermanent Disability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Logan v. Westchester Medical Center

A claimant, an office assistant, injured her lower back at work in 2004, establishing a workers’ compensation claim. In 2011, she sought to amend the claim to include a consequential right knee injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board dismissed the knee injury claim as time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, determining it was a direct, not consequential, injury. The Board also assessed a penalty against claimant's attorney for seeking review without reasonable grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s finding that the knee injury was direct and thus time-barred, citing substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the $500 penalty against counsel, finding that the appeal was not without reasonable grounds, given a specialist's opinion that the knee injury was consequential.

Workers' CompensationTime-Barred ClaimConsequential InjuryDirect InjuryAttorney PenaltiesAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceKnee InjuryBack InjuryMedical Opinion
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 12,721 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