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
Mar 27, 2003

Claim of Feeney v. Island Cable Construction, Inc.

Claimant, a telephone cable splicer, sustained a partial amputation of his left ring finger, which did not heal properly, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled he had a 20% schedule loss of use of the left ring finger. Claimant appealed, contending the loss should be applied to the entire left hand. Conflicting medical testimony was presented by an orthopedic surgeon, Richard Parker, supporting the claimant, and physician Jayaraj Kumar, who supported the Board's finding. The Board, exercising its authority to evaluate medical witness credibility, affirmed the initial finding. The court upheld the Board's decision, also rejecting the claimant's allegations of bias against the WCLJ.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseFinger AmputationMedical TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewJudicial BiasOrthopedic SurgeryDistal Phalanx InjuryGrip Strength
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02475 [204 AD3d 1210]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Gambardella v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant Vincent Gambardella, a bus maintainer, sustained work-related injuries to his back, left shoulder, and right third finger. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established a permanent partial disability with a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left arm and right third finger, and a nonschedule permanent impairment for his lower back, along with a 10% loss of wage-earning capacity. Due to voluntary retirement, the claimant was not entitled to a nonschedule award, but the WCLJ granted an SLU award. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, arguing that prior case law (_Taher_ and _Arias_) only applied to claimants who returned to work at preinjury wages. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that an SLU award is permissible when no initial award is made based on a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification, regardless of whether the claimant voluntarily retired, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityVoluntary RetirementLabor Market AttachmentDuplicative CompensationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentStatutory Interpretation
References
9
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
Jul 18, 1975

the Claim of Forest Westfall v. Linesville Construction Co.

The claimant, a 44-year-old pipe line construction worker, sustained a left eye injury in 1971, leading to enucleation. Twenty years prior, he had lost four fingers of his left hand due to an injury in Ohio. The Workmen's Compensation Board found a 95% loss of use of the left hand, concluding he was not totally and permanently disabled under section 15 (subd 8, par [c]) of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as he retained full thumb motion. Conflicting medical testimonies regarding the extent of his hand disability were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, citing that the board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that determining conflicting medical testimony is within the board's purview.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityHand InjuryEye InjuryMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLoss of UsePrior InjuryDisability Percentage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1994

In re the Claim of Sanders

The claimant, a production worker, injured her finger while operating heavy machinery and became upset when her employer would not permit another employee to drive her to a medical clinic. She drove herself to the clinic and subsequently resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her application for unemployment insurance benefits, ruling she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The court found that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, concluding the claimant left for personal and noncompelling reasons, and affirmed the decision.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary ResignationGood CauseWorkplace InjuryEmployer ConductAppeal Board DecisionSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeal
References
0
Case No. ADJ6995481
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

MARIA FERNANDEZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Unified School District's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant, Maria Fernandez, sustained multiple injuries in a 2009 fall, including to her left arm, left knee, back, and right fingers, requiring ongoing medical treatment and mobility aids. The Board found that the case of *Tenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing)* was inapplicable, and adopted the WCJ's report in full. The WCJ recommended upholding the original Findings and Award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTenet/Centinela Hospital Medical Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rushing)Primary Treating PhysicianKaiserSt. Francis HospitalStacy Medical (MPN)Dr. HeskiaoffPhilip A. Sobol MD
References
1
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05567 [209 AD3d 1073]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Vicente (Finger Lakes DDSO)

Elliot Vicente, a claimant with a work-related permanent partial disability from 2007, sought reclassification to permanent total disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3) due to extreme hardship, as his indemnity benefits were nearing exhaustion. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted his application, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending insufficient evidence, particularly regarding anticipated Social Security disability benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the finding of extreme hardship based on the claimant's significant financial shortfall in meeting monthly obligations and his documented inability to secure new employment.

Workers' Compensation LawExtreme Hardship RedeterminationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossIndemnity Benefit ExhaustionSocial Security Disability OffsetsFinancial StrainVocational LimitationsAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,048 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