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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2005

Claim of Haas v. Gross Electric

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from July 13, 2005, which denied his claim for benefits, finding no causally related injury. The claim stemmed from a December 17, 2002, work-related motor vehicle accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claim established based on medical expert opinions linking a back injury to the accident. However, this determination was rescinded after the carrier submitted newly discovered evidence—medical records from claimant’s primary care physician, Thomas Coppens—revealing prior back injuries and that the current problems began while wrapping presents on December 24, 2002. Subsequent medical opinions became ambivalent or changed, leading to the disallowance of the claim by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision later affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Motor Vehicle AccidentBack InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert OpinionPrior Medical HistoryNewly Discovered EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewClaim DisallowanceAppellate AffirmationBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pinto v. Southport Correctional Facility

Claimant, a teacher at a maximum-security correctional facility, experienced severe head pains and disorientation, leading to a claim for workers' compensation benefits for work-related stress, depression, headaches, and memory loss. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding the presumption of work-related injury rebutted and concluding that the stress experienced was not greater than that usually encountered in his work environment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny the claim on the merits. While the court disagreed with the Board's finding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) due to personnel decisions, it upheld the Board's alternate basis for denial, stating that the claimant failed to show the stress was beyond what similarly situated workers experienced.

Workers' CompensationStress-related injuryMental injuryCausationPresumption of injuryRebuttal of presumptionPersonnel decisionWork environmentCorrectional facilityTeacher
References
14
Case No. 535434
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin

Claimant Kimberly McLaurin, a train operator for the New York City Transit Authority, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging she contracted COVID-19 and suffered consequential psychological injury due to workplace exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding insufficient medical evidence of COVID-19 contraction and that the stress experienced was not greater than similarly situated workers. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the disallowance of the COVID-19 contraction and consequential injury claims due to lack of medical proof. However, it reversed the decision regarding the alternative claim for direct psychological injury, finding the Board improperly applied a disparate burden. The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration of the psychological injury claim consistent with the guidance in *Matter of Anderson v City of Yonkers* to determine if an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event existed and if a causal connection to the alleged injury was present.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryCausationWorkplace ExposureMedical EvidenceStress-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thomasula v. Wilson Concrete & Masonry

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained during employment. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, finding claimant's testimony not credible due to a delay in seeking medical attention, failure to file an accident report, and admitting to misrepresenting the injury as non-work-related for private insurance. Claimant appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the Board's authority to resolve credibility issues. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that the injury was not work-related. Claimant's remaining arguments were considered and rejected as lacking merit.

Workers' CompensationCredibility AssessmentAccidental InjuryEmployment InjuryMedical Attention DelayAccident ReportInsurance MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBoard's Authority
References
3
Case No. 534849
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Perry

Claimant Robert Perry, a correction officer, appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, Perry filed a claim in January 2017 for left hand and wrist injuries, which was established. He later sought to amend his claim in 2020 to include a causally-related left elbow injury, diagnosed in May 2020 and surgically repaired in February 2021. The Board, reversing a WCLJ decision, found the claim for the elbow injury time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, as it was filed more than two years after the original accident. The Board also denied Perry's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the claim for the left elbow injury was indeed time-barred and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, having properly weighed the evidence including conflicting medical records and claimant's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Statute of LimitationsTimely FilingClaim AmendmentLeft Elbow InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewFactual IssueSubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. 534955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Victor Martinez, a construction worker, was injured on November 11, 2020, when his right hand was caught between a cantilever pin and a concrete post. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, including injuries to his neck and back, in addition to his right upper extremity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim only for injuries to his right forearm and wrist, disallowing the neck and back claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this determination, amending the claim to include the neck and back injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the causal relationship of the neck and back injuries. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility and its factual findings.

Construction InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausality DeterminationNeck and Back InjuriesSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion CredibilityAppellate ReviewWork AccidentBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedist Testimony
References
8
Case No. CV-23-0766
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Daniels

Claimant Mary Daniels appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying a causally-related neck injury. Daniels, a train conductor, initially claimed work-related injuries to her right shoulder, elbow, and hand. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established claims for the shoulder and elbow but not the neck. The Board affirmed, noting Daniels did not report neck pain in her initial claim or during a hearing, despite medical experts opining on a causally-related neck injury based on her later complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence supported the finding that the medical opinions lacked a proper factual basis regarding the neck injury.

CausationNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
Case No. 533203
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Meggan Cotterell

Claimant Meggan Cotterell, a resident assistant, was injured at work on September 13, 2015, sustaining lower back injuries. In 2018, it was determined she also suffered a causally-related right hip labral tear. The employer and carrier objected to amending her claim to include the hip injury, arguing it was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A WCLJ credited the testimony of claimant's treating orthopedist, Matthew Stein, who diagnosed the hip injury in June 2017, and amended the claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, also affirmed, finding that numerous medical reports filed within two years of the accident, establishing bilateral hip pain, were sufficient to provide the Board with facts from which a claim for compensation could be reasonably inferred, thus preventing the claim from being time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' CompensationHip InjuryLabral TearTimeliness of ClaimAmendment of ClaimStatute of LimitationsMedical EvidenceOrthopedist TestimonyCausal RelationshipPreexisting Condition
References
7
Case No. 534171, 534534
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of James Banish

James Banish, a patrol officer, appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, his claim for jaw and head injuries resulting from an on-duty assault was established, but he later sought to amend it to include a causally-related left shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, found no causal relationship for the shoulder injury and denied the claim; subsequently, his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed both decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the shoulder injury was not causally related to his employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration, clarifying that Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207-c are distinct statutory schemes, and a prior award under one does not dictate the other.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cWorkers' Compensation LawSubstantial EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewPatrol Officer
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 23,156 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