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. 529417
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Johnson v. City of New York

Thomas Johnson, a patient care technician, sustained work-related knee injuries in a February 2006 fall. He subsequently sustained additional work-related injuries in November 2009 to his neck, back, shoulder, and hips, for which he received schedule loss of use (SLU) awards for his right arm, left leg, and right leg. The Workers' Compensation Board later ruled on the permanency of his 2006 injuries, finding an 80% SLU for his left leg and a 40% SLU for his right leg. However, the Board reduced these new awards by his previously received SLU awards for the 2009 injuries, resulting in a final 30% SLU for his left leg and a 0% SLU for his right leg. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, confirming that SLU awards for the knee and hip are encompassed within leg awards, and prior leg SLU awards must be deducted from subsequent leg SLU awards.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuriesHip InjuriesLeg ImpairmentPrior SLU Award DeductionAppellate Division ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician ReportPermanent Impairment GuidelinesWork-related Accident
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06428 [188 AD3d 1389]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Rybka v. Central N.Y. Psychiatric Ctr.

William Rybka, the claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a 2017 left hip injury. Rybka had a pre-existing 17.5% SLU to his left leg from a 2005 injury. For the 2017 injury, a medical examiner found a 30% SLU to the left hip, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined to be an overall 30% SLU of the left leg. The WCLJ then deducted the prior 2005 SLU, resulting in a 12.5% SLU award for the 2017 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld the Board's interpretation and application of relevant precedent, affirming the SLU award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Left Leg InjuryLeft Hip InjuryPrior Injury DeductionAppellate ReviewMedical Examiner ReportWorkers' Compensation BoardPrecedent (Matter of Genduso)Third Department (Appellate Division)
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05264
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Matter of Rickard v. Central New York Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant James Rickard suffered a work-related injury to his left knee while restraining a patient. An orthopedist determined he sustained a 17.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his left leg, specifically 7.5% for loss of extension and 10% for chondromalacia. The workers' compensation carrier sought credit for a prior 10% SLU award to the same left leg stemming from a 2015 hip injury. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this credit, resulting in a 7.5% SLU award for the current injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that prior SLU awards for the same body member should be credited against subsequent awards, as all impairments to separate parts of a member are encompassed by the overall SLU award for that member.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Leg InjuryPrior Injury CreditMaximum Medical ImprovementChondromalaciaKnee InjuryHip InjuryAppellate Division DecisionCredit Application
References
4
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00614
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Neely (New York City Dept. of Corr.)

Claimant Roscoe Neely appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a June 2017 work-related injury. The Board found that Neely sustained a 10% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his left arm and a 15% SLU of his left leg from this incident. However, due to prior SLU awards from a September 2014 injury (20% SLU left arm, 15% SLU left leg) exceeding the current awards, Neely was deemed not entitled to additional compensation, applying the precedent set in Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its interpretation and application of Matter of Genduso was sound.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Prior Workers' Compensation AwardsOffsetting AwardsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionCorrection Officer InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Knee InjuryLeft Arm SLULeft Leg SLU
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03113 [217 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2023

Sywak v. Grande

Plaintiff William M. Sywak commenced an action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, naming Barbara Grande and Joseph D. Dwyer and Robert D. Dwyer (Dwyer defendants) as parties. Plaintiff alleged serious injuries under various categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and claimed economic loss beyond basic economic loss. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing some serious injury claims but preserving others, including those for lumbar spine injuries. On appeal by the Dwyer defendants, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court granted the Dwyer defendants' motion to dismiss claims related to plaintiff's cervical spine, left hip, left arm, left shoulder, and left leg injuries under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and also dismissed the claim for economic loss in excess of basic economic loss, noting plaintiff's prior unemployment due to a workers' compensation accident. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion regarding plaintiff's lumbar spine injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories, finding a triable issue of fact.

Motor Vehicle AccidentSerious InjuryInsurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCervical Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryPermanent Consequential Limitation of UseSignificant Limitation of Use90/180-Day Category
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07650, 530727
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Semrau v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc.

Claimant, Daniel G. Semrau, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying him a zero percent schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left leg following a work injury in January 2016 that included a left knee injury and a tear to his left medial hamstring. Both his treating orthopedist, Rola Rashid, and the employer's orthopedist, James McGlowan, agreed he reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and had a permanent hamstring impairment, with differing SLU percentages (25% and 10% respectively). The WCB modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's initial finding, concluding Semrau was not entitled to any SLU award due to the absence of a specific special consideration for hamstring impairment in the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the WCB's decision, determining that the lack of a specific guideline for hamstring tears did not preclude an SLU award for a leg impairment, and a medical expert could rationally rely on a similar guideline, like that for quadricep ruptures, as a close corollary. The case was remitted to the WCB for a proper determination of claimant's SLU award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Hamstring InjuryMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Orthopedic EvaluationRemittalCausation
References
22
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2000

Claim of Scofield v. City of Beacon Police Department

The claimant, a police officer, sustained two work-related left knee injuries in May 1995 and May 1996, receiving regular wages under General Municipal Law § 207-c. A 15% schedule loss of use award was made for the left leg after the 1996 injury. The employer sought full reimbursement from this award for wages paid after both injuries, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 30. The claimant argued that reimbursement should only be for the first injury, based on his treating physician's opinion. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded the 1996 injury was a consequence of the 1995 injury, combining the files and allowing full reimbursement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support for the consequentiality and the appropriateness of full reimbursement as both injuries were related to the impairment.

Police Officer InjuryLeft Knee InjuryWork-Related InjurySchedule Loss of UseReimbursement ClaimConsequential InjuryCombined FilesWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewWage Reimbursement
References
4
Case No. ADJ7056401
Regular
Dec 02, 2020

BENITO HUERTA vs. MANPOWER, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding insufficient medical evidence to support an industrial injury to the applicant's left leg. The Board also determined that temporary disability was not a litigated issue at trial and thus deleted any prior findings on that matter. The issue of permanent disability was deferred due to the inadequacy of the medical evaluator's report, which failed to properly explain deviations from the AMA Guides. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record and a new decision on the left leg injury and permanent disability, with a new medical evaluator to be selected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLow BackRight ShoulderLeft LegTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA Guides
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12,942 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