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 31, 2006

Magadan v. Interlake Packaging Corp.

The plaintiff, a factory worker, sustained personal injuries while operating an S3A 7/8” Book Stitcher, leading to a lawsuit against the manufacturer (Interlake Packaging Corporation), its successor (Samuel Strapping Services), and the seller (Suburban Graphic Supply Corp.). The injury occurred when her finger was caught by the machine's needle due to an improperly adjusted finger guard. Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no design defect. However, the appellate court partially reversed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings about operating the machine without proper finger guard adjustment. Furthermore, the court found triable issues concerning the defendants' post-sale duty to warn about safety modifications.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppealFactory Worker InjuryMachine SafetyPost-Sale Duty to Warn
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04413 [162 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Tobin v. Finger Lakes DDSO

Kristi M. Tobin, a support aide, sustained injuries in April 2012 after being assaulted by a client, leading to a workers' compensation claim established for various injuries including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD)/complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of her right face. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded schedule loss of use for vision loss and facial disfigurement. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, classifying claimant's RSD/CRPS and ptosis as a nonschedule permanent partial disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rescinding the prior awards, and remitting the case for further record development regarding loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence supported the nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification due to the claimant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening ptosis, consistent with not receiving both schedule loss of use and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards for the same work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseReflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Facial DisfigurementWage-Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. 711 Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's left index finger injury, deemed a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Third-party defendant 3-D Laboratory, Inc. sought summary judgment, arguing the injury was not grave, but this motion was denied by both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. The Appellate Division further granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and defendant/third-party plaintiff 711 Group, Inc., affirming that the plaintiff indeed suffered a grave injury. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, emphasizing that the "loss of an index finger" constitutes a grave injury, supported by evidence of the plaintiff losing both interphalangeal joints and requiring multiple corrective surgeries.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndex Finger AmputationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsInterphalangeal JointsStatutory InterpretationCorrective SurgeriesMedical Amputation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blackburn v. Wysong & Miles Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe hand injuries while operating a steel press brake machine manufactured by Wysong and Miles Company. The plaintiff's employer, Stein Industries, Inc., was named as a defendant, and Wysong commenced a third-party action against Stein seeking contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed Wysong's third-party complaint against Stein, determining that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 for employer liability. Wysong appealed this dismissal and the denial of its motion for leave to renew. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the partial loss of an index finger and parts of multiple fingers did not constitute a 'grave injury' as defined by the statute, despite the serious nature of the injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationPartial Finger AmputationIndustrial Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Cocom-Tambriz v. Surita Demolition Contracting, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained a grave injury after a backhoe crushed his hand, requiring finger amputation and repositioning. The plaintiff initiated an action against B & P Real Estate, LLC, and Centaur Management, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer (the third-party defendant) seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude the third-party action. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the appellate court concluding that the plaintiff's injury—the loss of an index finger—constituted a grave injury. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppealFinger AmputationBackhoe InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1998

Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.

This case involves a plaintiff worker who sustained severe work site injuries, leading to the complete amputation of one finger and partial amputation of another. The worker sued a product manufacturer, and the manufacturer subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the worker's employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the worker's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the decision was unanimously affirmed. The appellate court clarified that "loss of multiple fingers" does not necessarily require a total loss to qualify as a "grave injury" under the statute.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationFinger AmputationWork Site InjuryProduct Manufacturer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityThird-Party ActionsSummary Judgment DenialAppellate Affirmation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCoy v. Queens Hydraulic Co.

The plaintiff suffered a partial amputation of her right index finger while operating a hydraulic press, leading to an action against Queens Hydraulic Co., Inc., for negligent design and manufacture. Queens Hydraulic then filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Feldware, Inc. Feldware moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's injury was not a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which permits employer liability only for such injuries. The Supreme Court denied Feldware's motion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that a partial loss of an index finger does not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by the statute, thus dismissing the third-party complaint against Feldware.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionAmputationIndex FingerAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2003

Hansen v. 510 Manhattan Affordable Housing

This case involves an appeal from a personal injury action where a worker was injured. The third-party defendant employer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by the building owner and manager. The motion court initially erred in suggesting that a partial ear loss could constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, drawing a parallel to the precedent that partial loss of fingers does not equate to the "loss of multiple fingers." Nevertheless, the denial of summary judgment for the employer was affirmed due to an unresolved factual dispute. The issue revolves around whether the worker's injury arose from the scope of work outlined in the purchase order, which would determine the employer's indemnification obligation to the defendants.

personal injuryworkers' compensationgrave injurysummary judgmentthird-party complaintemployer indemnificationfactual disputeappellate reviewNew York lawpartial loss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eastern District Repetitive Stress Injury Litigation

The defendants sought to transfer 78 repetitive stress injury (RSI) cases from the Eastern District of New York to districts where the claims arose, also seeking severance of individual claims. Over 450 RSI cases, involving over 1,000 plaintiffs against more than 100 equipment manufacturers, were initially consolidated in the Eastern District. However, the Second Circuit later vacated the consolidation orders, finding it an abuse of discretion due to lack of common facts and varying state laws. Relying on this guidance, the court granted transfer in 75 cases and denied it in three, citing factors such as convenience of parties and witnesses, judicial economy, and the public interest in local adjudication of local controversies. The court also ordered severance where necessary to facilitate transfer.

Transfer of VenueMultidistrict LitigationRepetitive Stress InjuryProducts LiabilityForum Non ConveniensSeverance of ClaimsConsolidation of CasesJudicial EconomyWitness ConvenienceChoice of Forum
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 12,716 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