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 Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neal v. Blue Circle Cement

The claimant, a laborer, suffered a compensable back injury in November 1998 and returned to work after eight months. In January 2002, he sustained another back injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that the January 2002 injury was an aggravation of the prior 1998 injury, assigned disability levels from January 2002 to April 2003, and found no compensable lost time thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence, including medical testimony and MRI comparisons, to support the Board’s determination regarding the aggravation of the injury and the disability levels. The court also upheld the Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical evidence and make credibility determinations, particularly in light of evidence that the claimant exaggerated his symptoms.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravation of InjuryDisability LevelsMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.

Plaintiff, George D. Enderlin, an employee of Salhen Enterprises, Inc., sustained a back injury while working on an asbestos removal project at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) and contracted by Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc. He twisted his back when a power screw gun slipped while he was on a stepladder, prompting him to grab a pipe to steady himself, though he did not fall. Enderlin and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241, which was initially denied summary judgment by the Supreme Court for the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence that RG&E or Hebert supervised the work for Labor Law § 200 liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (e) regarding stepladder security was not the proximate cause of the accident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Construction accidentLabor LawWorkplace safetySummary judgmentProximate causeStepladderAsbestos removalPersonal injuryAppellate reviewMonroe County
References
13
Case No. ADJ1220987 (SJO 0262634)
Regular
Nov 17, 2010

RICHARD GILLISPIE vs. PLASTECH, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) appealed an award of benefits to an applicant with a pre-existing disability, arguing a subsequent industrial back injury did not cause pathology in the opposite leg as required by statute. The Appeals Board affirmed the award, finding that Labor Code section 4751 only requires the subsequent injury to "affect" the opposite member, not necessarily cause direct pathology. Evidence showed the applicant's low back injury caused verified radiculopathy and impaired leg function, meeting the statutory requirement. The Board found SIBTF's legal arguments unpersuasive and the WCJ's findings supported by substantial evidence.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751industrial injurylow backradiculopathypermanent disabilityopposite and corresponding memberpathologyAMA GuidesDRE category III
References
2
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. ADJ9210498
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

ELEANOR DEFRANCO vs. MONTEREY FISH COMPANY, ENSTAR (US) INC., dba ENSTAR ADMINISTRATORS FOR SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award that found industrial injury to applicant's right ankle, right shoulder, and back, but not her right knee. The WCAB rescinded the finding of industrial injury to the back, while otherwise affirming the prior decision. Specifically, the WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained industrial injury to her right ankle and right shoulder, and that medical treatment for her right knee is compensable to relieve the effects of the industrial injuries. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning for these decisions, including the application of the *Braewood* principle for treating the non-industrial knee condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEleanor DefrancoMonterey Fish CompanyEnstarSeabright Insurance CompanyIndustrial InjuryRight AnkleRight ShoulderRight KneeBack Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ286062 (OAK 0307695)
Regular
Apr 06, 2009

RICHARD BARTON vs. USS POSCO INDUSTRIES, USK CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed a prior decision finding applicant sustained industrial injuries to his neck, right shoulder, and arms. The Board amended the decision to defer the issue of back injury and certain sanctions. Defendant challenged the original decision, arguing the WCJ erred in finding a back injury, a $\S 132(\text{a})$ violation, and in relying on a specific doctor's report. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, granting reconsideration to amend the findings and deferring those specific issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 132(a)Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationApplicantDefendantIndustrial InjuryLaborerPrimary Treating PhysicianSecondary Treating Physicians
References
0
Case No. ADJ14466153
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

JESSE CRUZ vs. BRISTOL INDUSTRIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant Jesse Cruz sought reconsideration of a WCJ's June 3, 2022 Findings and Order (F&O), which found he did not sustain an industrial injury to his back, hips, legs, and feet while employed by Bristol Industries on June 17, 2020. The Appeals Board previously granted reconsideration to further study the case and found the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed. Citing insufficient medical evidence on the issue of injury and a lack of clear analysis in the WCJ's credibility determination, the Board rescinded the F&O and remanded the matter to the trial level for further proceedings, including obtaining expert medical opinion on the injury and a more detailed credibility analysis by the WCJ.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication NumberFindings and OrderWCJReconsiderationFurther ProceedingsBack PainPeripheral NeuropathyLumbar MRI
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Fave v. St. Lawrence County

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in October 1992. Years later, in November 1996, he was diagnosed with sciatica and a herniated disc, leading to surgery in March 1997. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his back condition was causally related to the 1992 injury. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting medical evidence supporting the causal relationship from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner, despite the employer's consultant expressing doubts. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the employer's request for further record development due to untimeliness.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealAffirmationTimelinessRecord Development
References
4
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 14,141 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