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
Feb 01, 1978

Claim of Goss v. Hornblower & Weeks

Claimant, a stockbroker, sustained a compensable left knee injury in 1974, leading to surgery and a 10% schedule loss award. Subsequently, the claimant sought to have a right knee injury, sustained in 1975 after being struck by a bicycle while en route to a medical examination for his left knee, deemed a consequential injury. While the referee initially found the right knee injury compensable, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the evidence did not establish a direct and natural link between the industrial left knee injury and the subsequent right knee injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence in the record to support the disallowance of the claim.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryConsequential InjurySchedule LossBoard ReversalAffirmationStockbrokerAccidentMedical ExaminationAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ3023725 (STK 0186210) ADJ 6853419
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

IGNACIO ROA vs. ROHRER BROTHERS/GENERAL PRODUCE; FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, administered by SEDGWICK; XL SPECIALTY/BROADSPIRE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant Ignacio Roa's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding 20% permanent disability for a right knee injury with 50% apportionment to nonindustrial factors. Roa also sought to establish an industrial injury to his left knee as a consequence of the right knee injury and a cumulative trauma injury to both knees, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied. The Board affirmed the judge's findings, relying on Dr. Henrichsen's opinion that Roa's left knee symptoms were due to the natural progression of prior surgery and wear, not industrial factors. A dissenting opinion argued for further medical development, finding persuasive evidence of industrial contribution to the left knee condition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIgnacio RoaRohrer BrothersFremont Compensation Insurance CompanyCIGAXL SpecialtyState Compensation Insurance Fundpermanent disabilityapportionmentnonindustrial factors
References
5
Case No. 525196
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2018

Matter of Derouchie v. Massena W. Wc Smelter

Claimant Gerry J. Derouchie sustained injuries on February 18, 2015, including to his right knee and left hip, after stepping into a pothole on his employer's premises. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and his case was established for multiple injuries. Having prior injuries and surgeries, claimant sought authorization for total right knee and left hip replacement surgeries, which the employer and carrier denied. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) granted the authorization, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, finding a causal relationship between the February 2015 accident and the need for surgeries. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence and deference to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipKnee Replacement SurgeryHip Replacement SurgeryPreexisting ConditionsAggravation of InjuryMedical AuthorizationSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. ADJ7028736
Regular
Sep 25, 2014

KIRK CHRISTENSEN vs. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and ordered the defendant to authorize left knee surgery. This was based on the finding that the defendant failed to timely object to Dr. Greenfield's December 20, 2013 report and Request for Authorization, which implicitly determined the left knee injury was industrial. The Board found that the defendant's failure to object within statutory deadlines precluded them from contesting causation. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing Dr. Greenfield's reports did not explicitly link the left knee injury to the industrial incident.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalLabor Code section 4062(a)Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderPrimary Treating PhysicianReportsObjections
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related slip and fall in 2002, leading to injuries including his head, neck, back, and knees. His morbid obesity contributed to his back and knee issues, prompting him to seek authorization for gastric bypass surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge approved the surgery, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the surgery causally related to the compensable injuries. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the causal link. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting substantial evidence that the claimant's weight gain was a result of the sedentary lifestyle imposed by his injuries, and that the surgery would aid in his recovery.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryGastric Bypass SurgeryMorbid ObesityMedical Treatment AuthorizationCausationKnee InjuryBack InjurySedentary LifestyleBoard Decision Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Riescher v. Central Hudson Gas Electric

A claimant suffered two left knee injuries, first in 1999 and second in 2009, both while working as a lineman for a utility company. The first injury, covered by Alliance National Insurance Co., resulted in a 30% schedule loss of use for the left leg. The second injury, covered by Travelers Indemnity Company of America, led to a total bilateral knee replacement. The cost of left knee surgery was initially apportioned 80% to Alliance and 20% to Travelers. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later ruled that this apportionment applied only to the *increase* in the schedule loss of use award, not the overall award. The WCLJ found an overall 50% loss of use, representing a 20% increase, and applied the apportionment to this increase, resulting in Alliance being responsible for 46% and Travelers for 4% of the overall award. Alliance appealed, arguing for apportionment of the overall award, but the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. The appellate court further affirmed the Board's decision, declining to reconsider the method of apportionment.

Workers' Compensation AppealSchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryApportionmentInsurance Carrier LiabilityWCLJ DecisionBoard ReviewJudicial DiscretionLeft Leg InjuryLien
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Picone v. Putnam Hosp.

In 2002, claimant sustained a non-work-related left knee injury, followed by surgery. In 2011, claimant suffered a work-related left knee injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined a 35% schedule loss of use of the left leg, apportioning 50% to the prior non-work-related injury, resulting in a 17.5% award. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. Claimant appealed the apportionment, arguing it should not apply to a schedule loss of use award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing medical evidence from two orthopedic surgeons supporting the apportionment of the schedule loss of use award between the work-related and prior non-work-related injuries.

Schedule loss of useApportionmentKnee injuryWorkers' compensation appealMedical opinionPrior injuryNon-work-related injuryWork-related injuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03425
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Hopeck v. Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp.

Claimant Edward Hopeck suffered a left knee injury in 1984, receiving a schedule loss of use award which was later increased. After knee replacement surgery in 2006, awards were made for a temporary disability period, but a new injury claim was canceled and merged with the original, marked for no further action pending new medical evidence. Despite additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, Hopeck did not seek further awards until 2020. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that reopening the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123 due to the lapse of time and the claimant's decade-long inaction. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the Board's finding of a truly closed case was not disturbed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Schedule Loss of UseClaim ReopeningStatute of LimitationsLachesAppellate ReviewKnee InjurySurgical InterventionBoard Decision AffirmedMedical Evidence Requirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 1997

Claim of Krisher v. Graver Tank Manufacturing Co.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) that found no causally related disability during the period of April 10, 1995, to June 17, 1996. The claimant had sustained a back injury in 1990, followed by surgery in 1994, and later developed a left knee injury, leading to surgery in February 1995. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits for reduced earnings, but the WCB modified this, concluding there was no causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the WCB's decision, citing testimony from orthopedic surgeon Roy Wert that the claimant could return to work without restrictions by April 1995. Another orthopedic surgeon, George Fuksa, opined that the knee injury was preexisting and not a result of the back surgery.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityBack InjuryKnee InjuryMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonReduced EarningsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePreexisting Injury
References
1
Case No. 533459
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Hopeck

Claimant Edward Hopeck sustained a left knee injury in 1984, leading to a schedule loss of use award which was later increased in 2000. Following knee replacement surgery in 2006, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge marked the case for no further action pending new medical evidence. In 2020, after additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, claimant sought further awards. However, both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the reopening of the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123, citing the lapse of time since the injury and last payment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's decade-long inaction in pursuing awards constituted an abandonment of the claim, thus making the time limitations of § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Reopening of ClaimStatute of LimitationsSchedule Loss of Use AwardKnee InjuryAppellate ReviewClaim AbandonmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionJudicial Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,156 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