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. ADJ11027267
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

LUIS ROSALES vs. IRELAND TILE AND STONE INC., SEDGWICK 14779 SAN DIEGO

This case involves an injured tile setter, Luis Rosales, who claimed lumbar radiculopathy stemming from an admitted industrial lumbar contusion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order, upholding a finding of 0% permanent disability. This decision was based on the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports, which the Board found to be substantial evidence. The Board specifically rejected the applicant's argument that the QME's opinions were inconsistent, clarifying that the QME found the sacral cyst unrelated to the lumbar contusion, not that the symptoms were unrelated to the cyst.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerPQMEDr. Sonusupplemental reportsubstantial evidencelumbar contusionsacral cystradiculopathypermanent disability
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03160 [184 AD3d 925]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Wanamaker v. Staten Is. Zoological Socy.

Diane Wanamaker, a zookeeper, filed a workers' compensation claim after being struck by a bird, resulting in a forehead laceration and postconcussion syndrome. She was classified with a permanent partial disability and a 61% loss of wage-earning capacity. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier challenged a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of no Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. Their application for Board review was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board for failing to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), specifically by not stating when their objection was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its authority to deny incomplete applications.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityApplication for ReviewRegulatory ComplianceAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewBoard AuthorityProcedural DefectZookeeper Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 1998

Bailey v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the Capital District

Plaintiff Robin Bailey, an electrical supervisor, was struck in the forehead by a falling concrete core while working on a construction site owned by the YMCA. The incident occurred after he had plugged in an extension cord on an elevated running track and returned to the ground floor. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the injury was associated with an elevated risk. The Supreme Court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff's work on the ground floor did not involve an elevation-related risk requiring safety devices, and the concrete core did not constitute material being improperly hoisted or secured.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryLabor Law § 240(1) LiabilityElevation RiskSummary Judgment ReversalWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionConstruction SitePlaintiff InjuryEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lucas v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co.

Decedent Stanley Lucas, an electrician, died from generalized pancreatitis secondary to a ruptured pancreatic abscess, which was found to be a compensable injury. He was discovered lying on the ground at work by a co-worker after reportedly hurting himself on a plank, leading to a contusion on his pancreas. Medical testimony from Dr. Seymour Cutler and Dr. Lester M. Fox established a direct causal link between the work injury on January 23, 1975, and his death on January 27, 1975. The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, resulting in a causally related death, was supported by substantial evidence. The decisions of the Board were affirmed on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 118Corroboration of AccidentDecedent's DeclarationsExpert Medical TestimonyAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipPancreatic InjuryEmployment-Related DeathSubstantial Evidence ReviewBoard Affirmation
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01108 [158 AD3d 965]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Matter of Williams v. New York State Off. of Temporary Disability & Assistance

Claimant, Theresa J. Williams, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. She alleged an elevator door struck her, causing sprains and contusions. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding she exaggerated the incident and her injuries did not arise from employment, based significantly on video surveillance that contradicted her account. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve factual issues and assess witness credibility. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no medical opinion establishing causation based on the incident as depicted in the video.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCredibility AssessmentVideo Surveillance EvidenceElevator IncidentClaim DisallowanceBoard Decision AffirmationFactual Issue ResolutionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Case No. Appeal No. 61254
Regular Panel Decision

Wehmeyer v. Port Authority

Plaintiff, an employee, suffered multiple injuries, including fractured ribs and a contusion of the left kidney, after falling from a ladder onto a counter in the Eastern Airlines terminal. The initial Supreme Court order granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court modified this order, reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Eastern Airlines and Port Authority due to unresolved factual issues regarding safe equipment provision. However, claims against New York Helicopter and ASI were dismissed, as they lacked sufficient control over the plaintiff's work to incur liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Motions for reargument were partially granted, while motions for leave to appeal were denied.

Labor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskEmployer LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01424 [159 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Ocasio v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y.

Plaintiff Luz Ocasio was injured when a hot metal object struck her forehead while she was in an elevator at her workplace, Jacobi Medical Center. She subsequently filed a lawsuit, leading defendants Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) and Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc. to move for summary judgment. The Supreme Court initially granted both motions, dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, finding triable issues of fact against Nouveau due to circumstantial evidence linking their adjacent elevator work to the incident, thus denying Nouveau's motion. Conversely, the Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment in favor of DASNY, concluding that DASNY lacked notice of the dangerous condition and could not be held negligent.

Elevator accidentSummary judgmentNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturTriable issues of factVicarious liabilityNoticePersonal injuryWorkplace injuryAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Turkenich

Igor Turkenich was convicted of manslaughter after making inculpatory statements to police without Miranda warnings while confined in a psychiatric hospital. The statements concerned the death of his mother, Zinaida Turkenich, who died from a skull fracture and contusions. The defendant, a recent Russian immigrant with diminished mental capacity and unable to speak English, was interrogated by detectives at Metropolitan Hospital. Despite the detectives' initial intent to give Miranda warnings, a doctor advised against it due to the defendant's mental state. The trial court initially suppressed the statements but later reversed its ruling. On appeal, the court determined that the interrogation was custodial due to the defendant's involuntary confinement, mental condition, and lack of English proficiency, making the statements inadmissible without prior Miranda warnings. The judgment of conviction was reversed, the suppression motion granted, and a new trial ordered.

Miranda RightsCustodial InterrogationSuppression MotionManslaughter First DegreeMental CapacityInvoluntary ConfessionDue ProcessPsychiatric ConfinementInterpreter IssuesVoluntariness of Statements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waldron v. Wild

Daniel J. Waldron sued Michael P. Wild for personal injuries from a May 25, 1980 car accident. Waldron, a passenger, sustained facial lacerations. Wild moved for summary judgment, arguing Waldron's injuries were not 'serious' under Insurance Law § 671, subdivision 4, lacking 'significant disfigurement.' Special Term granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. Waldron appealed, asserting his half-centimeter forehead scar and nasal prominence constituted significant disfigurement. The appellate court examined medical reports and the definition of 'significant disfigurement,' noting it's a factual issue often requiring visual assessment. The court adopted a jury instruction defining it as a condition a reasonable person would find unattractive, objectionable, or pitiable. Concluding that Waldron demonstrated a triable issue of fact, the appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, denying the summary judgment motion.

NegligencePersonal InjuryCar AccidentFacial InjuriesSignificant DisfigurementNo-Fault LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceScarring
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Graham

This case addresses whether plaintiff Cedric Fleming's facial injuries, specifically scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid, constitute a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, qualifying as a "grave injury." Fleming, an employee of Pinstripes Garment Services, LLC, sustained these injuries in a collision with a school bus. He sued Evergreen Bus Service, Inc., and its driver, who then initiated a third-party action against Pinstripes for indemnity/contribution, claiming Fleming's injuries were "grave." Supreme Court denied Pinstripes' summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division affirmed, finding factual questions. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, establishing a standard for "severe facial disfigurement" which requires the injury to greatly alter the face's appearance and be regarded as "abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly" by a reasonable person. Applying this standard, the Court found that Fleming's injuries, despite numerous scars and some permanency, did not meet the "severe" disfigurement threshold, thereby granting Pinstripes' motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementPermanent InjurySevere InjuryThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 10 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