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

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 25, 2013, which denied his application to include a partial right rotator cuff tear under his existing 2002 work-related injury claim. The Board found that claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2002 automobile accident and the 2009 rotator cuff tear, despite the opinion of his orthopedist. The orthopedist acknowledged that age-related degeneration could cause such tears independently of trauma. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the orthopedist's testimony did not convincingly prove a causal relationship.

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. 518426
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2014

MatterofAndersonvNewYorkCityDepartmentofDesign&Construction

Donald Anderson, the claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a 2002 work-related automobile accident. Initially, his claim was established for neck and back injuries, but in 2005, the Workers' Compensation Board determined he had no continuing disability, noting he was magnifying symptoms. In 2009, Anderson was diagnosed with a partial right rotator cuff tear, which he sought to include under his existing claim, alleging a causal link to the 2002 accident. The Board denied this application, finding a lack of established causal relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Anderson failed to present convincing evidence from his orthopedist or any other proof to establish the necessary causal connection between the 2002 accident and his right rotator cuff tear.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRotator Cuff TearAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewShoulder InjurySubstantial EvidenceCausation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2008

Taylor v. American Radio Dispatcher, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The defendants established their prima facie case by submitting reports of independent medical examinations. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as her experts’ reports, opining on a tear of the anterior talo-fibular ligament and a tear of the meniscus of the right knee, lacked objective, contemporaneous evidence of the extent and duration of alleged physical limitations. Additionally, there was no contemporaneous medical proof for her claim that her injury prevented her from performing substantially all of her usual activities for 90 of the 180 days following the accident. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Serious injuryInsurance Lawsummary judgmentmedical examinationanterior talo-fibular ligamentmeniscus tearobjective evidencephysical limitationscustomary activitiesappellate division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendall v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

Plaintiffs Holly and Richard Kendall appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to defendants in their toxic tort and negligence action. The Kendalls' home was contaminated by tear gas during a SWAT incident, followed by remediation efforts using various cleaning agents. They alleged adverse health effects from residual tear gas and cleaning chemicals, suing their insurer (Arnica Mutual) and remediation contractors (USA Decon, Duct and Vent, and Robert Demaret). The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding plaintiffs failed to establish specific and general causation linking their post-remediation exposure to their alleged injuries. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that the expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient to raise a question of fact regarding causation.

Toxic tortNegligenceSummary judgmentCausationExpert testimonyTear gas exposureRemediationChemical contaminationHomeowner's insurance claimAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2017

Barrett v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Brian Scott Barrett challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his disability benefits application. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found Barrett not disabled, concluding he could perform light work despite impairments like a right knee meniscal tear, left shoulder rotator cuff tear, neck and low back degenerative disc disease, and depressive disorder. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. Barrett moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing errors in weighing medical opinions, RFC determination, and credibility. The Court denied both motions for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the ALJ, citing the ALJ's failure to properly apply the treating physician rule to Dr. Dowling's opinions and to clarify reliance on a Single Decisionmaker's RFC assessment.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityDepressive DisorderKnee InjuryShoulder InjuryBack PainNeck Pain
References
38
Case No. 534152
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maurice Blue

Claimant Maurice Blue sustained a right leg injury in 2016, leading to a workers' compensation claim for his right knee. His physician diagnosed a medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia patella, initially recommending a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) but later limiting it to 10% based on the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded 50% SLU, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to 10%, strictly applying a special consideration for chondromalacia patella and disregarding the meniscal tear. The Appellate Division found the Board's interpretation irrational, stating it leads to inequitable outcomes where greater injury results in lesser compensation. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the restrictive interpretation of the guidelines and remitting the matter for a proper assessment of the evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryChondromalacia PatellaMeniscus TearMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEquity in CompensationRange of Motion DeficitsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
33
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07650, 530727
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Semrau v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc.

Claimant, Daniel G. Semrau, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying him a zero percent schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left leg following a work injury in January 2016 that included a left knee injury and a tear to his left medial hamstring. Both his treating orthopedist, Rola Rashid, and the employer's orthopedist, James McGlowan, agreed he reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and had a permanent hamstring impairment, with differing SLU percentages (25% and 10% respectively). The WCB modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's initial finding, concluding Semrau was not entitled to any SLU award due to the absence of a specific special consideration for hamstring impairment in the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the WCB's decision, determining that the lack of a specific guideline for hamstring tears did not preclude an SLU award for a leg impairment, and a medical expert could rationally rely on a similar guideline, like that for quadricep ruptures, as a close corollary. The case was remitted to the WCB for a proper determination of claimant's SLU award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Hamstring InjuryMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Orthopedic EvaluationRemittalCausation
References
22
Case No. ADJ7998888
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

GARY HERNANDEZ vs. WESTERN TEAR OFF, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN

Lien claimants sought reconsideration after their liens were reduced by a WCJ without an evidentiary record, arguing a denial of due process. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ failed to create an adequate record by not admitting exhibits into evidence. Without a proper record to review, the Board rescinded the WCJ's orders. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including a lien trial, as the lien claimants' petition for reconsideration was deemed timely filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantsReconsiderationDue processEvidentiary recordCompromise and Release AgreementStipulationIndustrial cumulative traumaBurden of proofAdmitted exhibits
References
0
Case No. ADJ306310
Regular
Mar 23, 2009

MATTHEW T. MORAN vs. ABHE & SVOBODA, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, BRANDVOLD & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's March 23, 2009 decision, which awarded further medical treatment including arthroscopic surgery. The Board found the medical record, particularly regarding the conflict between the treating physician's and QME's opinions on the need for surgery and the causation of the left shoulder tear, was not adequately developed. The matter was returned for further proceedings, specifically to obtain an Agreed Medical Evaluator or have the WCJ appoint an expert to resolve the conflicting medical opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryLeft ShoulderArthroscopic SurgeryMR ArthrogramRotator Cuff Tear
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1978

Tobin v. City of Yonkers

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed April 13, 1978, which affirmed an award of death benefits to the claimant. The Board found, based on the record and earlier testimony of Dr. Alesio, that the claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and that the subsequent death was causally related to a myocardial infarction, finding the effect of climbing stairs was more than the wear and tear of life. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination and affirmed the decision.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMyocardial InfarctionCausationEmployment AccidentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWear and Tear DoctrineMedical TestimonyBoard Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 54 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