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 Hughes v. Indian Valley Industries, Inc.

In October 1996, the claimant sustained a work-related injury while lifting a 500-pound tarpaulin, leading to claims of left foot, leg, low back injuries, and nerve damage. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) recognized causal relationship only for the left foot injury, later amending the findings to include the back injury and left foot drop. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded the portion regarding the left foot drop for further medical evaluation but affirmed the causal relationship for the back injury and rejected the carrier's fraud allegations. The employer and its carrier appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, noting that resolving conflicting expert medical testimony falls within the Board’s authority and concluding that the Board’s findings on the back injury and fraud issue were supported by substantial evidence.

CausationBack InjuryLeft Foot DropMedical EvidenceConflicting TestimonyWorkers' Compensation FraudPreexisting ConditionSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate AffirmationJudicial Review of Administrative Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ2023774
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHRISTOPHER CORBO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns whether an applicant's severe crush injury to his left foot, involving a partial avulsion of the heel pad, constitutes an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C) for purposes of extending temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the injury did not meet the definition of amputation. The Board clarified that "amputation" requires severance or removal of a limb or appendage, not merely a severe laceration or partial separation of tissue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4656(c)(3)(C)AmputationTemporary DisabilityCrush InjuryAvulsionHeel PadCalcaneusCruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jweid v. Vicks Lithograph & Printing

Claimant injured his back at work in February 1999, leading to multiple diagnoses and back surgeries. Following surgeries, he developed a consequential left foot drop injury. A workers' compensation claim was established and later amended to include the foot drop. Medical evidence supported a 40% loss of use of the left foot and a permanent partial disability of his back, with the claimant having reached maximum medical improvement. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge made a schedule loss award for the 40% loss of use of the left foot, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing against a schedule loss award. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, as a schedule loss of use award is appropriate when there is no continuing need for medical treatment and the condition is stable.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseBack InjuryFoot DropMedical ImprovementPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
5
Case No. ADJ13011053
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

NORBERTO GARCIA vs. DOMINATION COLLABORATION, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Norberto Garcia, a cook, sustained multiple industrial injuries including to his psyche, spine, shoulders, left ankle, lower extremities/gait, kidneys, and in the form of hypertension, anemia, diabetes, and left foot amputation. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability, finding that the impairments should be added due to their synergistic effects. Defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing errors in combining impairments and apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's findings that Dr. Lonky's medical opinions supported the additive approach for disability calculation and that even with minor adjustments, the applicant's permanent disability still exceeded 100%.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHypertensive Cardiovascular DiseaseRenal DiseaseDiabetes MellitusLeft Foot AmputationGait DerangementVocational Evaluation
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06228 [153 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

Matter of Everett v. Sodexo, Inc.

Eugene Everett, a dishwasher, suffered a foot injury at work when a large pot fell on it, leading to the amputation of his toe and ultimately half of his left foot. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, which his employer, Sodexo, Inc., and its carrier opposed, asserting the injury was due to his diabetes and that he made misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the injury causally related and no misrepresentation, a decision affirmed by a Workers' Compensation Board panel and then by the full Board. The employer's appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, was dismissed. The court ruled that the right to appeal from the Board panel's decision terminated upon the issuance of the full Board's superseding decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorkplace InjuryAmputation ClaimCausation DisputeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAppeal DismissalSuperseding JudgmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Parkinson

James R. Allen, Sr., an employee of the County of Cayuga and the Village of Moravia, suffered a traumatic amputation of his left foot. He initiated separate actions, consolidated, and pursued workers’ compensation, resulting in an 85% schedule loss of use for his left leg. A stipulated settlement was reached in court, but the Workers’ Compensation Board declined to award benefits for the permanent injury without a nunc pro tunc order from the Supreme Court, declaring the Village and State Insurance Fund waived claims against the award. The Supreme Court granted this order. However, the appellate court determined that the Fund had clearly reserved its right to a credit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (3) and (4) in the settlement. The Court reversed the nunc pro tunc order, stating that the settlement terms were unambiguous, and plaintiff's remedy for any misunderstanding was a plenary action or motion to set aside the settlement.

Workers' CompensationStipulated SettlementNunc Pro Tunc OrderAppellate ReviewWaiverCreditSupreme CourtSchedule LossTraumatic AmputationInsurance Carrier
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1979

In re the Claim of Jones v. John W. Cowper Co.

On April 26, 1973, the claimant sustained a work-related accident, with an initial employer's report specifying only a left foot injury. Four years later, on May 17, 1977, the claimant filed a compensation claim for injuries to his left ankle and back. While the original foot injury claim was not contested, the claim for the back injury was due to untimely notice. A referee initially allowed the foot injury claim but disallowed the back injury claim on March 5, 1979, due to lack of timely notice. The Workers’ Compensation Board, on December 27, 1979, modified this decision, finding that notice and causal connection for the back condition were established. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which bars claims not filed within two years of the accident. The court concluded that the Board lacked the power to amend a claim after two years to include an unrelated condition. The matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Timely NoticeClaim AmendmentStatute of LimitationsBack Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision ReversalRemittalWork-Related InjuryFoot InjuryJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ8411201
Regular
Feb 04, 2014

EMMETT MARSHALL vs. BREWER CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury to the applicant's left foot and back, with temporary disability and future medical treatment. While affirming the injury to the left foot, the WCAB rescinded the finding of back injury. The temporary disability rate was also amended to reflect the statutory maximum of $1,074.64 per week, from the previously awarded $1,126.06. The decision otherwise affirmed the original findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPile DriverIndustrial InjuryLeft FootTemporary DisabilityMaximum Wage EarnerMedical TreatmentTallahassee Orthopedic ClinicWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,255 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