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 Prescott v. Town of Lake Luzerne

A claimant fell off a dump truck at work in February 2008, landing on his right buttock and injuring his hip. The injury led to surgery in May 2008 to remove heterotopic bone and subsequent two-stage hip replacement revision surgeries in November 2008 and February 2009 due to an infection. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the initial surgery and subsequent revisions causally related to the work fall and supported compensation awards. The employer appealed, arguing that an independent medical examination (IME) was improperly precluded and that the initial surgery lacked proper authorization. The Appellate Division affirmed the preclusion of the IME due to untimeliness and upheld the causal relationship findings for the injury and subsequent surgeries. However, the court reversed the Board's determination that the May 2008 surgery was properly authorized, remitting that specific issue for further proceedings, while affirming all other appealed decisions.

Causal RelationshipIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Evidence PreclusionSurgery AuthorizationHip InjuryHeterotopic OssificationMedical Opinion ConflictDue ProcessRemittiturEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1996

Roman v. 1185 Avenue of the Americas Associates

This case involves an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff, Victor Roman, leave to amend his bill of particulars to include additional injuries. Roman filed an action in 1989 for injuries sustained in a 1987 job site accident, initially alleging traumatic degenerative arthritis and torn muscles in his left hip. After undergoing hip replacement surgeries in 1992 and 1994, a stipulation was made in 1994 with defendant A.J. Contracting Co., allowing for further discovery if the hip surgeries were later alleged to be causally related. In 1996, Roman moved to amend his bill of particulars to include these surgeries, supported by proof of workers' compensation coverage due to the causal connection. The court granted this motion, and the appellate court affirmed, citing the policy of freely allowing amendments in the absence of prejudice, which the defendants failed to demonstrate.

Personal injurySlip and fallConstruction accidentHip replacementBill of particularsLeave to amendStipulationCausal connectionWorkers' compensationPrejudice
References
1
Case No. 525196
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2018

Matter of Derouchie v. Massena W. Wc Smelter

Claimant Gerry J. Derouchie sustained injuries on February 18, 2015, including to his right knee and left hip, after stepping into a pothole on his employer's premises. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and his case was established for multiple injuries. Having prior injuries and surgeries, claimant sought authorization for total right knee and left hip replacement surgeries, which the employer and carrier denied. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) granted the authorization, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, finding a causal relationship between the February 2015 accident and the need for surgeries. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence and deference to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipKnee Replacement SurgeryHip Replacement SurgeryPreexisting ConditionsAggravation of InjuryMedical AuthorizationSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nayal v. HIP Network Services IPA, Inc.

Dr. Christine Nayal initiated a class action against HIP Network Services IPA, Inc., alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and a violation of New York General Business Law § 349. As a practicing psychologist, Nayal claimed that HIP, a health maintenance organization, failed to provide timely and adequate reimbursement, including interest, for services rendered under their agreement. HIP responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration, citing a clause in their contract, or, alternatively, seeking dismissal of the claims. The Court, presided over by Judge Victor Marrero, evaluated the enforceability of the arbitration provision. Finding no procedural or substantive unconscionability under New York law, the Court granted HIP's motion to compel arbitration for all claims, subsequently dismissing the entire action without prejudice.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityClass Action WaiverFederal Arbitration ActNew York General Business LawContract DisputeBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stilwell v. Marriott

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's work-related hip injury. The claimant sought authorization for hip replacement revision surgery due to recurring dislocations. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier opposed the request, arguing a lack of causal relationship and failing to provide conflicting medical evidence as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (5). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board authorized the surgery, finding the employer failed to comply with the statute. The employer's appeal, which also raised a due process argument, was ultimately affirmed.

Hip InjuryRevision Surgery AuthorizationCausal Relationship DisputeWorkers' Compensation Law § 13-a (5)Medical Evidence RequirementEmployer Non-complianceDue Process AppealWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Division AffirmationTreating Physician Recommendation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stewart v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.

A claimant, who worked as a cashier, developed persistent leg and hip pain diagnosed as a slipped femoral epiphysis requiring surgery in August 1990. Following surgery, he allegedly developed chronic low back pain and filed for workers' compensation benefits. While surgeons opined that neither the slipped hip nor back pain were work-related, chiropractors testified otherwise. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled in the claimant's favor, finding a causal relationship for both conditions. The employer and its insurer appealed, raising an issue about the chiropractors' qualifications which was deemed not properly preserved. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for the causal relationship.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipSlipped Femoral EpiphysisBack PainChiropractor TestimonyMedical Expert QualificationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer AppealInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related slip and fall in 2002, leading to injuries including his head, neck, back, and knees. His morbid obesity contributed to his back and knee issues, prompting him to seek authorization for gastric bypass surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge approved the surgery, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the surgery causally related to the compensable injuries. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the causal link. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting substantial evidence that the claimant's weight gain was a result of the sedentary lifestyle imposed by his injuries, and that the surgery would aid in his recovery.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryGastric Bypass SurgeryMorbid ObesityMedical Treatment AuthorizationCausationKnee InjuryBack InjurySedentary LifestyleBoard Decision Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Casiano v. CCIP/Union Settlement Home Care

In March 2001, claimant sustained a work-related back injury. Neurosurgeon Richard J. Radna recommended and performed decompression surgery despite the workers' compensation carrier denying preauthorization for the procedure. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the surgery was not medically necessary, thereby absolving the carrier of liability for its cost. Claimant and Radna appealed this determination to the appellate court. Radna's appeal was dismissed due to lack of standing, and the Board's decision was affirmed, as it was within its purview to resolve the conflicting medical evidence presented by Radna and the carrier's neurosurgeon regarding the necessity of the surgery.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical NecessitySurgical ProcedurePreauthorization DenialNeurological InjuryConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewStanding IssueCarrier LiabilityBack Injury
References
3
Case No. LAO 0811779, LAO 0811780
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

ELENA BLANKEVOORT vs. HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, S&B SURGERY CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a trial judge's order disallowing a lien claim from S&B Surgery Center. The WCAB found that while S&B Surgery Center did have a required "surgical clinic" license, it failed to prove compliance with fictitious business name filing requirements. However, the WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing S&B Surgery Center an opportunity to correct this procedural defect to recover on its lien.

Fictitious business nameLien claimantSurgical clinic licenseBusiness and Professions Code section 17910Medical BoardDepartment of Health ServicesBurden of proofReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOutpatient setting
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 1988

Claim of Edmondson v. State Insurance Fund

The claimant, a payroll clerk, sustained a left hip injury after tripping at work in 1981, leading to multiple surgeries including a hip fusion and removal of the femoral head and neck, resulting in an 80% schedule loss of use of her left leg. The employer sought to apportion the disability due to a preexisting condition of avascular necrosis and a prior hip injury. However, the Workers' Compensation Board determined the 80% schedule loss was solely related to the compensable accident, a finding affirmed on appeal based on medical testimony that the orthopedic surgeon opined the preexisting condition was nondisabling and not progressive at the time of the accident.

Workers' CompensationHip InjurySchedule Loss of UseAvascular NecrosisApportionmentPreexisting ConditionMedical TestimonyOrthopedic SurgeryCausationState Insurance Fund
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 938 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