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. ADJ9525033
Regular
May 10, 2019

KIMBERLY BARRY vs. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Department of Food and Agriculture, regarding the calculation of permanent disability ratings for applicant Kimberly Barry's cumulative trauma injury. The defendant contests the method used to combine the applicant's multiple body part impairments, arguing the Combined Values Chart (CVC) should have been used instead of simple addition. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record. The Board requires clarification from the Qualified Medical Evaluator on the most accurate method for combining the applicant's kidney and liver impairments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDepartment of Food and AgricultureState Compensation Insurance FundKimberly BarryAgricultural TechnicianCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kimberly H.

This derivative neglect proceeding concerns Kimberly H., a newborn infant whose older siblings were removed from their mother's home due to findings of excessive corporal punishment shortly before Kimberly's birth. The Family Court initially found Kimberly not to be at imminent risk and conditionally released her to her mother. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, citing the recent neglect findings regarding Kimberly's siblings and their continued placement in foster care. The court determined that protection from an established threat of harm must take precedence over infant-parent bonding. Consequently, Kimberly was remanded to the custody of the Commissioner of the petitioner agency pending a full fact-finding hearing.

Derivative neglectCorporal punishmentImminent riskChild removalFoster careParental rightsFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionChild protectionParental therapy
References
6
Case No. CV-24-0499
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly Ericson

Claimant Kimberly A. Ericson appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied her claim for benefits, ruling her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Ericson sustained injuries when she tripped on a public sidewalk while commuting to work, arguing that municipal codes requiring her employer to maintain sidewalks should entitle her to compensation. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found for Ericson, but the Board reversed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no special hazard at the fall site and no close association of the access route with the premises, concluding that the injuries were not incident to her employment.

Workers' CompensationPublic Sidewalk FallCommuting InjuryArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of EmploymentSpecial Hazard RulePremises RuleMunicipal CodeAppellate ReviewInjury Compensability
References
10
Case No. CV-24-1300
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly Siddon

Kimberly Siddon appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying the reopening of her claim for an increased schedule loss of use (SLU) of her left knee. Siddon, who had previously undergone two surgeries and received SLU findings of 12% and 20%, sought a 35% SLU based on an orthopedic surgeon's report detailing worsening range of motion. The Special Fund for Reopened Cases failed to properly contest the surgeon's medical opinion, despite multiple opportunities. The Board, however, rejected the surgeon's objective range-of-motion measurements as merely subjective, a finding inconsistent with its own impairment guidelines. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Special Fund had waived its right to contest the evidence and that the Board's rationale for denial was unsupported given the uncontradicted and properly rendered medical opinion. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Knee InjuryClaim ReopeningMedical ExaminationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWaiverBoard DiscretionMedical EvidenceRange of Motion
References
7
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 08137
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

Matter of Dakota W. (Kimberly X.)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court of Broome County's order terminating the parental rights of Kimberly X. and Chad W. for abandoning their three children. The parents appealed, citing due process violations due to their absence from the fact-finding hearing and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the parents voluntarily absented themselves, and their legal representation was adequate. Furthermore, the court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding of abandonment, as the parents failed to visit or communicate with their children or the petitioning agency during the six-month statutory period. Therefore, the Family Court's decision to transfer guardianship and custody to the Broome County Department of Social Services was upheld.

abandonmentparental rights terminationdue processfoster carefact-finding hearingappellate reviewsocial services lawchildren's rightsclear and convincing evidencevisitation rights
References
15
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05001 [197 AD3d 1421]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2021

Matter of Barry v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant Robert J. Barry challenged the Board's denial of his application for review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, citing his failure to serve the necessary party, New Hampshire Insurance Company, despite serving its claim administrator, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. The Board also denied his subsequent request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, holding that Sedgwick was not a "necessary party of interest" and that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying review due to defective service, nor did it act arbitrarily in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationService RequirementsBoard ReviewNecessary PartiesClaim AdministratorAppellate DivisionPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityReconsiderationAbuse of Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanyer v. Kimberly Quality Care

Esperanza Sanyer, a Spanish-speaking Ecuadorian, sued her former employer, Quality Care-USA d/b/a Olsten Kimberly Quality Care (Kimberly), alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Sanyer claimed discrimination in job assignments and wrongful termination. Kimberly moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found that while Sanyer established a prima facie case of discrimination, Kimberly provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, including Sanyer's attendance issues and submission of inaccurate time sheets. Sanyer failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that her national origin was the real reason for her termination.

DiscriminationNational OriginTitle VIIEmployment LawSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasBurden ShiftingPrima Facie CaseTerminationInaccurate Time Sheets
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1983

Sheldon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, suffered a double arm amputation on July 30, 1980, while operating a machine at its Ancram Mill. Plaintiff initiated legal action against Kimberly-Clark, two entities named Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc., and five senior corporate officers (Smith, Hibbert, Ernest, Jones, and Gade), alleging various torts, including the formulation of a corporate policy prioritizing productivity over worker safety. The individual officers, who were non-domiciliaries, moved to dismiss the complaint, citing a lack of in personam jurisdiction and protection under the fiduciary shield doctrine. The appellate court modified Special Term's order, granting the motion to dismiss against the five individual officers, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence for long-arm jurisdiction and that the fiduciary shield doctrine applied as their actions were corporate. Additionally, the court clarified that Special Term's dismissal against Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc., pertained only to the first entity, which had been dissolved through merger into Kimberly-Clark in 1958.

Long-arm jurisdictionIn personam jurisdictionFiduciary shield doctrineCorporate officers liabilityMerger of corporationsCorporate policyTortious actMotion to dismissAppellate reviewPersonal injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1985

In re Kimberly K.

This case concerns an appeal in a child protective proceeding from an order of disposition by the Family Court, Queens County, which dismissed the petition. The Family Court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to corroborate the child's out-of-court assertions of abuse, specifically regarding the identity of the abuser. The Appellate Court reversed this order, clarifying that corroborative evidence as to the abuser's identity is not a requirement under Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi). It found that the child's out-of-court statements, supported by medical evidence of an enlarged entroitus and a social worker's expert conclusion of abuse, were sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the proceeding was remitted to the Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing and determination.

Child ProtectiveFamily LawAppealCorroborationChild AbusePrima FacieMedical EvidenceSocial WorkerRemandAppellate Division
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 122 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