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

Castillo v. 711 Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's left index finger injury, deemed a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Third-party defendant 3-D Laboratory, Inc. sought summary judgment, arguing the injury was not grave, but this motion was denied by both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. The Appellate Division further granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and defendant/third-party plaintiff 711 Group, Inc., affirming that the plaintiff indeed suffered a grave injury. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, emphasizing that the "loss of an index finger" constitutes a grave injury, supported by evidence of the plaintiff losing both interphalangeal joints and requiring multiple corrective surgeries.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndex Finger AmputationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsInterphalangeal JointsStatutory InterpretationCorrective SurgeriesMedical Amputation
References
4
Case No. ADJ18355035
Regular
Sep 16, 2025

Houtan Pezeshkan vs. City of Foster City, The Cities Group

Applicant Houtan Pezeshkan sought compensation for a cumulative trauma injury to his left index finger while employed by the City of Foster City. Defendant City of Foster City petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's findings, arguing the applicant's current symptoms were a progression of a prior specific injury rather than a new cumulative injury. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the original Findings of Fact, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision was based on the lack of substantial medical evidence to support a separate cumulative injury and the necessity of reviewing medical evidence from the applicant's previous specific injury.

Cumulative traumaSpecific injuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactPeriod of injurious exposureDate of injuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial evidenceProximate cause
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCoy v. Queens Hydraulic Co.

The plaintiff suffered a partial amputation of her right index finger while operating a hydraulic press, leading to an action against Queens Hydraulic Co., Inc., for negligent design and manufacture. Queens Hydraulic then filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Feldware, Inc. Feldware moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's injury was not a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which permits employer liability only for such injuries. The Supreme Court denied Feldware's motion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that a partial loss of an index finger does not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by the statute, thus dismissing the third-party complaint against Feldware.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionAmputationIndex FingerAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ6938516 (LBO)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Robert Enciso vs. SANTA CLARITA CONCRETE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the date of injury in Robert Enciso's case from February 1, 2009, to January 16, 2009. While Enciso claimed injury to other body parts and sought further benefits, the Board affirmed the original findings that the injury was solely to his left index finger and resulted in no permanent disability or need for further medical treatment. This decision was based on stipulations made by Enciso's former attorney and supported by the medical opinion of Dr. Hakimian. The Board also found that the employer provided proper notice regarding the Medical Provider Network.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderDate of InjuryPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentStipulationsAverage Weekly EarningsMedical TreatmentMPN
References
4
Case No. ADJ11756808
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

JASON KOLB vs. TAMPA BAY DEVIL RAYS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case involves a professional athlete claiming cumulative industrial injury to multiple body parts. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the initial judge erred by solely awarding benefits for the left shoulder, despite unanimous medical evidence of injury to other areas. The Board adopted the opinions of Dr. Kim, finding industrial injury to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, left elbow, wrists, hands, fingers, hips, and left knee. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability award was increased from 3% to 41%.

ADJ11756808Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineRight ShoulderLeft ElbowWrists
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blackburn v. Wysong & Miles Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe hand injuries while operating a steel press brake machine manufactured by Wysong and Miles Company. The plaintiff's employer, Stein Industries, Inc., was named as a defendant, and Wysong commenced a third-party action against Stein seeking contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed Wysong's third-party complaint against Stein, determining that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 for employer liability. Wysong appealed this dismissal and the denial of its motion for leave to renew. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the partial loss of an index finger and parts of multiple fingers did not constitute a 'grave injury' as defined by the statute, despite the serious nature of the injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationPartial Finger AmputationIndustrial Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Cocom-Tambriz v. Surita Demolition Contracting, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained a grave injury after a backhoe crushed his hand, requiring finger amputation and repositioning. The plaintiff initiated an action against B & P Real Estate, LLC, and Centaur Management, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer (the third-party defendant) seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude the third-party action. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the appellate court concluding that the plaintiff's injury—the loss of an index finger—constituted a grave injury. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppealFinger AmputationBackhoe InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaybough v. Nathan Littauer Hospital

Plaintiff, a manual laborer, suffered a severe hand injury and sought emergency care at Nathan Littauer Hospital. Due to significant delays (over six hours) in receiving proper treatment and the wound not being cleaned, his condition deteriorated, leading to failed surgeries performed by Dr. Thomas S. Eagan and permanent injury to his left index finger. Plaintiff sued the hospital and Dr. Eagan for medical malpractice, later discontinuing the claim against Eagan. A jury found the hospital liable, awarding $250,000 for pain and suffering. The hospital appealed, arguing improper denial of summary judgment, insufficient proximate cause proof, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appeals court affirmed the judgment against Nathan Littauer Hospital, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of negligence and damages.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceSurgical ErrorDelayed TreatmentProximate CauseSummary JudgmentVerdict UpheldDamages AwardTendon InjuryHand Surgery
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 12,964 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