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
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2007

Serrano v. 432 Park South Realty Co.

A jury in New York County found that the plaintiff did not suffer a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, awarding damages for past pain and suffering ($600,000), future pain and suffering ($4,240,000), and future medical expenses ($2,302,425). The Supreme Court's judgment was subsequently modified by the appellate court. The appellate panel reduced the award for future medical expenses by $150,111 by vacating the award for household services. It also vacated the award for future pain and suffering and remanded for a new trial on those damages, unless the plaintiff stipulated to a reduced amount of $2,500,000 for future pain and suffering. The award for past pain and suffering was affirmed, considering the plaintiff's injuries including a herniated disc, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewDamages ReductionHerniated DiscReflex Sympathetic DystrophyPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03378
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2025

Barcia v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Plaintiff Gracie Barcia initiated a personal injury lawsuit following a slip and fall at a Costco warehouse, alleging permanent injuries to her right shoulder, lumbar, and cervical spine. A jury awarded her damages, including for past and future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. Defendants appealed, moving to set aside the future medical expenses award, while plaintiff sought to increase pain and suffering awards. The Appellate Division found errors, including allowing plaintiff to reopen her case to admit additional medical bills post-resting and improper conflation of cervical and lumbar spine injuries in the life care plan. Consequently, the court deemed the evidence insufficient to support the jury's damages award, modifying the judgment to grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages, and affirming the remainder of the judgment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallDamagesFuture Medical ExpensesPain and SufferingInconsistent VerdictReopening CaseMedical BillsLumbar SpineCervical Spine
References
6
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01773 [236 AD3d 571]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2025

Morrobel v. Alicea

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Ninoska Morrobel, concerning injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, awarded principal sums for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, along with interest. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's findings regarding the causal relationship of cervical spine injuries to the accident and the awards for pain and suffering and future medical expenses. The appellate court rejected arguments that the findings were against the weight of the evidence or that Insurance Law § 5108 limited future medical expense damages. However, it modified the judgment to vacate the original interest award and remitted the matter for recalculation of interest at the statutorily mandated 3% rate for cases against the New York City Transit Authority, instead of the 9% rate initially applied.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal Injury DamagesCervical Spine InjuriesJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedureInterest Rate CalculationPublic Authorities LawInsurance Law ApplicationMedical Expense AwardsWeight of Evidence
References
13
Case No. ADJ7527787
Regular
Jun 27, 2014

JAIME MADRIGAL vs. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY, INTERCARE

This case involves applicant Jaime Madrigal's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The original award, based on stipulations, granted Madrigal 25% permanent disability for a left knee injury and provided for future medical benefits. Madrigal sought to overturn the award, claiming his attorney failed to account for future medical issues and additional disabilities like sleep and psychological disorders. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no evidence of misleading statements or procedural errors, and noting Madrigal's ongoing access to future medical care and the ability to reopen his claim for new or further disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryLeft Knee InjuryFuture Medical BenefitsBus DriverSleep DisorderPsychological Disorder
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2005

Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff who was impaled by a steel bar, resulting in paraplegia and associated complications, while working. A jury awarded the plaintiff substantial damages for past and future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, modified the judgment, reducing the award for future medical expenses and conditionally vacating the award for future pain and suffering. A new trial was ordered for future pain and suffering damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount. The court affirmed liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), rejecting the recalcitrant worker defense and stating that comparative negligence does not diminish a defendant's liability under this law.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Personal InjuryDamages AwardFuture Medical ExpensesPain and SufferingAppellate ReviewJury VerdictParaplegia
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2009

Angamarca v. New York City Partnership Housing Development Fund, Inc.

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision that an undocumented alien worker's immigration status is irrelevant to the recovery of future medical treatment costs. Justice Tom states that Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC only addressed lost wages and does not extend to future medical expenses. The dissent contends that preventing the jury from considering the plaintiff's non-resident status and intention to return to Ecuador, where medical costs are lower, leads to an unfair and excessive damage award based solely on U.S. medical costs, which constitutes a windfall for the plaintiff. The dissent advocates for reversal and a new trial on damages for future medical expenses, asserting that public policy does not justify such excessive awards.

Immigration StatusFuture Medical ExpensesUndocumented AlienPersonal InjuryDamagesDissenting OpinionCost of CareEvidence PreclusionJury InstructionBalbuena Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lutheran Medical Center v. Hereford Insurance

Maher Kiswani, a livery car driver, was injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment from Lutheran Medical Center. Lutheran, as Kiswani's assignee, sought payment from Hereford Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, which refused to pay. After an initial arbitration where the Workers' Compensation Board determined Kiswani was not injured in the course of employment (without Hereford's notice), a second arbitration awarded Lutheran no-fault benefits. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated this arbitration award, ruling that Hereford should have been notified of the Workers' Compensation Board hearing. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that a party not afforded an opportunity to participate in a Board hearing is not bound by its determination.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNotice RequirementsVacated Arbitration AwardAppellate ReviewLivery Car DriverAutomobile AccidentMedical Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kihl v. Pfeffer

Plaintiff Merryl Kihl was injured in a car accident in 1995, sustaining ankle and C2 vertebra fractures, and subsequently developed chronic pain. She sued Karl O. Pfeffer (driver) and County of Nassau (road design). A jury found both defendants negligent, apportioning 13% fault to Pfeffer and 87% to the County. Kihl was awarded significant damages for past and future pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost earnings. The County appealed, seeking to reduce the jury's award for future medication expenses via a collateral source hearing under CPLR 4545 (c). The Supreme Court denied the reduction, finding the County failed to establish with "reasonable certainty" that Kihl's husband's health insurance would cover future medication costs, citing factors like Finnell's job insecurity, changing benefits, the strained marriage, and Kihl's uninsurability. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, upholding the jury's damage awards and the denial of the collateral source reduction, emphasizing the strict construction of CPLR 4545 (c) and the high "reasonable certainty" standard of proof.

Collateral Source RuleCPLR 4545 (c)Reasonable Certainty StandardFuture Medical ExpensesPersonal Injury DamagesJury VerdictsAppellate ReviewHealth Insurance CoverageSpousal DependencyEconomic Loss
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 14,387 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