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

Beattie v. Ebbels

The claimant, an office manager employed since 1965, suffered a compensable injury on February 25, 1981, leading to an award for a permanent partial disability. The employer was aware of the claimant's preexisting herniated disc from 1965, but the claimant performed duties without issues. The primary legal question addressed whether the employer's knowledge of this preexisting condition at the time of hire established liability for the Special Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The Worker’s Compensation Board determined there was insufficient knowledge, a decision which the court affirmed. Additionally, a jurisdictional issue raised by the carrier was found to be without merit, leading to an affirmation of the decision with costs awarded to the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionEmployer KnowledgeAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionJurisdictional IssueDecision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weather v. Astrue

Plaintiff Jessica Weather sought judicial review after her application for Supplementary Security Income (SSI) benefits, alleging disability since June 2007, was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ's decision was affirmed by the Appeals Council. A Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision, finding the ALJ correctly assessed the plaintiff's residual functional capacity and credibility, despite objections concerning vocational expert consultation and consideration of all medical issues. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Social Security DisabilitySupplementary Security IncomeJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility AssessmentTreating Physician RuleVocational ExpertMedical EvidencePain Symptoms
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1982

Claim of Sammaritano v. Attractive Fashions, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claim for benefits where the primary dispute was the workers’ compensation insurance carrier's contention of proper cancellation of its policy. The referee denied the carrier's adjournment request and found insufficient proof of proper cancellation, a decision affirmed and reaffirmed by the Board. The appellate court reviewed whether the Board's refusal to restore the case to the calendar was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion, noting the carrier had ample opportunities to present its case and was unprepared despite the issue being raised early. The Board's decisions were affirmed.

Insurance CoveragePolicy CancellationAdjournment DenialAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousEvidentiary IssuesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationCarrier ResponsibilityCoverage Dispute
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hosey v. Central New York DDSO

This case involves the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, which outlines conditions for shifting liability to the Special Fund when a workers' compensation case is reopened. The primary condition requires that the case must have been 'truly closed' for liability to shift. Here, the claimant had been working continuously with restrictions since 2002, had no compensable lost time, and was receiving ongoing medical treatment payments. Crucially, the issue of permanency remained unresolved. Consequently, the Board determined that the case had not been truly closed, a finding that was supported by substantial evidence. The decision of the Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundLiability ShiftCase ClosurePermanencyMedical TreatmentUnresolved IssuesBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barth v. Hanson Aggregates, Inc.

In 2005, a crusher operator suffered a fatal myocardial infarction. His widow, the claimant, sought workers' compensation death benefits, which the employer and its carrier disputed, arguing no causal link to employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim. The claimant appealed, challenging the admissibility of the employer's expert physician's report and arguing for the presumption of compensability for unwitnessed deaths during employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the employer had substantially complied with evidentiary rules and provided substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, ultimately concluding that the decedent's death was not causally related to his employment.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipExpert WitnessEvidence AdmissibilityPresumption of CompensabilityOccupational DiseaseEmployer DefenseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Young v. Ceramic Tile Contractors

Claimant suffered a severe back injury in 1989, leading to permanent total disability. His treating physician recommended a therapeutic whirlpool at home, which the Workers’ Compensation Board authorized. The carrier, overseeing the renovations, faced issues when improper installation caused significant home damage and biohazardous fungus. Disputes also arose over the carrier’s obligation to pay for approved limousine transportation for the claimant. The Board affirmed that the carrier was liable for the home repairs due to its control over the project and for the transportation, finding it a less expensive alternative to an ambulance. The decision and amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board were affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BoardPermanent Total DisabilityTherapeutic WhirlpoolHome ModificationsMedical NecessityCarrier ResponsibilityDefective WorkBiohazardous FungusTransportation ServicesLimousine Transportation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 27,384 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