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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05567 [209 AD3d 1073]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Vicente (Finger Lakes DDSO)

Elliot Vicente, a claimant with a work-related permanent partial disability from 2007, sought reclassification to permanent total disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3) due to extreme hardship, as his indemnity benefits were nearing exhaustion. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted his application, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending insufficient evidence, particularly regarding anticipated Social Security disability benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the finding of extreme hardship based on the claimant's significant financial shortfall in meeting monthly obligations and his documented inability to secure new employment.

Workers' Compensation LawExtreme Hardship RedeterminationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossIndemnity Benefit ExhaustionSocial Security Disability OffsetsFinancial StrainVocational LimitationsAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
4
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. CA 12-01210
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2013

NEW YORK FINGER LAKES REGION POLICE, MTR. OF

Petitioner appeals an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award determined that the respondent, City of Auburn, did not violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement when it terminated the employment of one of petitioner’s members. The court reiterated that an arbitration award may only be vacated if it is irrational, violates strong public policy, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power. The court found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA was not irrational and did not alter its terms, thus not exceeding his authority. Therefore, the order denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award was unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment TerminationIrrational AwardPublic Policy ViolationArbitrator AuthorityAppellate ReviewVacate ArbitrationLabor DisputeJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04520
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2022

Parkison v. KBM Mgt., Inc.

Plaintiff, Lisa Parkison, commenced an action seeking damages arising from consulting services provided by defendant KBM Management, Inc., related to the Wayne Finger Lakes School Workers' Compensation Plan. Defendant appealed from an order that granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden. Specifically, the plaintiff did not establish as a matter of law that any damages were proximately caused by the alleged breach of contract by the defendant. Consequently, the order insofar as appealed from is reversed, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PlanAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDamagesConsulting ServicesWayne Finger Lakes School Workers' Compensation Plan
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Deck v. Dorr

This is a dissenting opinion concerning a Workers' Compensation Board's amended decision regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The claimant had already received a 100% SLU award for the loss of four fingers on their right hand and was granted an additional 100% SLU for their right thumb. The dissenting judge, Aarons, J., argues that there was a lack of substantial medical evidence to support the additional award for the thumb, as the claimant's surgeon did not explain how the thumb injury was separate and distinct from the injury to the other four fingers, which resulted from a single incident. The dissent highlights that the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment and Loss of Wage Earning Capacity specify that the loss of all fingers at proximal phalanges equates to 100% loss of use of the hand. Based on this, the dissenting judge would have reversed the portion of the amended decision granting the additional SLU for the thumb, although the final order stated the amended decision was affirmed.

schedule loss of useSLU awardright hand injurythumb amputationfinger amputationworkers' compensation boarddissenting opinionmedical evidencepermanent impairmentwage earning capacity
References
3
Case No. ADJ9365173
Regular
Jun 19, 2017

MARIA LOPEZ vs. GENERAL WAX CO. INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of permanent total disability for the applicant. The applicant sustained admitted industrial injuries including a partial finger amputation, hypertension, gastrointestinal issues, and a psychiatric injury. The Board found that the finger amputation constituted a "violent act" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c), making the applicant's psychiatric impairment compensable. The defendant's arguments regarding stale medical records and insufficient vocational expert analysis were rejected due to lack of proper citation and contradictory evidence in the record.

AOE/COEPermanent Total DisabilityPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code 4660.1(c)Violent ActCatastrophic InjuryVocational ExpertApportionmentSubstantial Medical EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
13
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. CA 11-00957
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2011

CHARNEY, CHRISTOPHER M. v. LECHASE CONSTRUCTION

Plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, in a personal injury action stemming from a worker's injury during the demolition of a structural steel canopy. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, partially reinstating claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) that were previously dismissed, citing remaining triable issues of fact regarding the accident's cause. The court found that whether the accident was elevation-related under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether a specific industrial code was violated under Labor Law § 241 (6) required further factual determination. Additionally, the court addressed a contractual indemnification provision, ruling a portion void but deeming any final determination on indemnification premature due to unresolved factual disputes.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentStructural CollapseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Contractual IndemnificationTriable Issues of FactWorker Safety
References
13
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
Showing 1-10 of 91 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