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. 2022-08-1069
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2025

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Workplace InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator CuffMedical CausationExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityEmployee Burden of ProofInterlocutory AppealRemandSubsequent Injury Fund
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00466
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Matter of Kennedy v. 3rd Track Constructors

Claimant Alastair Kennedy, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site, filing for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, foot, and ankle injuries. The employer's carrier accepted the claim for foot and ankle but contested neck and left shoulder injuries, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant's testimony regarding the accident and prior injuries not credible, denying the claims for neck and left shoulder injuries and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the non-causal relation of neck and left shoulder injuries and the mandatory penalty for misrepresentations. However, the Court reversed the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, modifying and affirming the Board's decision as so modified.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimCredibility AssessmentMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. 2021-06-0468
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2021

Walker, Dionnie v. Clarksville Dep’t of Electricity

Dionnie Walker sought medical benefits and temporary disability for a left shoulder injury, which she claimed resulted from overusing her left arm after a right shoulder injury while working for the Clarksville Department of Electricity. The employer argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and lacked medical proof connecting the left shoulder injury to work. The Court found the statute of limitations had not run but denied relief, stating Ms. Walker failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her left shoulder condition was primarily work-related or a direct consequence of her compensable right shoulder injury. The Court acknowledged Ms. Walker's testimony regarding the employer's failure to accommodate was credible and her theory plausible, but emphasized the need for expert medical testimony. The case is set for a status hearing, and the denial does not prevent Ms. Walker from seeking further evidence.

Expedited HearingStatute of Limitations DefenseLeft Shoulder Injury ClaimRight Shoulder InjuryMedical CausationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Proof InsufficiencyWork-RelatednessEmployer Non-AccommodationPhysician Assistant Assessment
References
6
Case No. 2016-07-0037
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2018

Austin, Ricky v. RR RD Trucking, Inc.

Mr. Ricky Austin, a truck driver for RR RD Trucking, Inc., sought medical benefits for a left shoulder injury, claiming it resulted from overusing his left arm after a right shoulder injury in 2014. The employer denied the claim, asserting the injury did not arise from employment. The Court heard the disputed issues and found that Mr. Austin did not establish an identifiable incident by time and place of occurrence for his left shoulder injury. Furthermore, Dr. Sweo, the treating physician, could not state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the employment contributed more than fifty percent to the need for left shoulder treatment. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Austin's request for medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsLeft Shoulder InjuryOveruse InjuryCausationMedical CertaintyRotator Cuff TearExpedited HearingTruck DriverEmployer Liability
References
0
Case No. 2016-03-0400
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2016

Dunn, Jason v. United States Infrastructure

Jason Dunn, a utility worker for United States Infrastructure (USI), injured his right shoulder in October 2014. After multiple surgeries and physical therapy for his right shoulder, he began experiencing left shoulder problems in February 2015, which his authorized physician, Dr. Eric A. Morgan, diagnosed as an over-compensation injury related to the original right shoulder injury. Dr. Morgan recommended left shoulder surgery, which utilization review approved but Liberty Mutual denied. An independent medical evaluation by Dr. Edward Kahn concluded the left shoulder injury was age-related and not caused by the work incident. The Court weighed the conflicting medical opinions, giving greater weight to Dr. Morgan's opinion due to his greater contact with Mr. Dunn, and found that Mr. Dunn is likely to prevail on the merits, granting his request for left shoulder surgery.

Shoulder InjuryOvercompensation InjuryMedical BenefitsCausationConflicting Medical OpinionsExpedited HearingPreponderance of EvidenceDirect and Natural Consequences RuleMedical Treatment AuthorizationUtilization Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. 2022-03-0580
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

Rash, Clayton v. Fine Line Transportation, LLC

Clayton Rash, a truck driver for Fine Line Transportation, suffered a broken left wrist at work. While undergoing physical therapy for his wrist, he sustained a left shoulder injury, which he attributed to exercises performed during therapy. Fine Line Transportation denied benefits for the shoulder injury, arguing against causation. The Court found Mr. Rash's testimony credible and, relying on the opinion of a panel-selected physician, Dr. Kenneth Grinspun, determined that the shoulder injury was a direct and natural consequence of his compensable wrist injury. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Rash medical treatment for his left shoulder, including recommended surgery, and ordered Fine Line Transportation to pay temporary partial disability benefits.

Shoulder InjuryWrist FracturePhysical Therapy InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationExpedited HearingEmployer's Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2005

Claim of Jones v. New York State Department of Correction

The claimant, a bus driver for the New York City Department of Correction, sustained work-related injuries to her right shoulder and back in September 1998. After surgery in 1999, she sought treatment in 2001 for left shoulder pain, alleging it was a consequential injury from favoring her right shoulder. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related consequential injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to make its own factual findings and resolve conflicting medical evidence. The Board found the self-insured employer’s medical consultant more credible than the claimant’s physician, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionCausal RelationshipConsequential InjuryCredibility of WitnessesConflicting Medical EvidenceShoulder InjuriesBus DriverNew York City Department of CorrectionAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. 2024-40-5803
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2025

Reed, Kimberly v. Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a trial court's order concerning an employee's work-related injuries. The employee, Kimberly Reed, reported a left arm/shoulder injury and later sought treatment for head/face/TMJ complaints. The trial court had ordered the employer, Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, to provide a second opinion for shoulder surgery and a panel of otolaryngologists for the TMJ condition. The Appeals Board affirmed the order for a second opinion on shoulder surgery, finding the authorized physician's reports constituted a recommendation for surgery. However, the Board reversed the order for the otolaryngologist panel, concluding there was insufficient evidence at this stage to prove the TMJ condition was causally related to the work injury. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealSecond Opinion Medical ReviewShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearTemporomandibular Joint DisorderCausation of InjuryMedical Treatment AuthorizationInterlocutory AppealEvidentiary StandardProcedural Compliance
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 18,213 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