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
May 11, 1990

Claim of Johnson v. New York City Board of Education

This case involves an appeal from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant sustained a consequential injury and subsequently restored the case to the trial calendar. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant's physician's testimony, despite some lack of clarity, met the requirement of signifying a probability as to the cause of the injury and was supported by a rational basis. Specifically, the determination that the claimant’s left ankle fracture was a consequence of an earlier work-related ankle fracture, which left the ankle in a weakened condition, was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAppealConsequential InjuryAnkle FractureMedical EvidencePhysician TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate AffirmationWork-Related InjuryMedical Causation
References
3
Case No. 533294
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Strack v. Plattsburgh City Sch. Dist.

Claimant Nancy Strack, a school teacher, sustained a left intertrochanteric hip fracture and left wrist injury in 2016. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was established. During permanency evaluations, independent medical examiners Dr. Saunders found a 60% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left leg, while Dr. Petroski found 0% SLU. After initial proceedings and administrative review, the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately affirmed a 0% SLU based on Dr. Petroski's opinion, despite previously requiring updated X-rays for such assessments. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that Dr. Petroski's opinion lacked substantial evidence because it, like Dr. Saunders', failed to incorporate updated X-rays as mandated by the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for a proper determination of the claimant's SLU award.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Hip FractureWorkers' Compensation GuidelinesIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Medical EvidenceX-ray RequirementAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePermanent Impairment
References
6
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04294
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2022

Froehlich v. Kimco Realty Corp.

Dennis Froehlich (plaintiff) sued Kimco Realty Corporation et al. (defendants) for personal injuries, specifically a left elbow fracture, sustained from a fall. During discovery, defendants sought to compel the plaintiff to release workers' compensation, disability, and medical records for unrelated, preexisting injuries to his right shoulder and both knees. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, holding that the plaintiff had not waived the physician-patient privilege for unrelated conditions as his claim for damages was limited to the left elbow injury and he had not advanced broad allegations of injury or claimed exacerbation of prior conditions.

Personal InjuryDiscoveryMedical RecordsPhysician-Patient PrivilegePreexisting InjuriesWaiver of PrivilegeScope of DiscoveryAppellate ReviewLeft Elbow InjurySuffolk County
References
9
Case No. 533294
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Nancy Strack

Nancy Strack, a school teacher, sustained a left hip fracture and wrist injury after a fall in 2016, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled a 0% schedule loss of use (SLU) for her left leg, overturning a WCLJ's prior 60% SLU finding. This decision was based on physician Douglas Petroski's evaluation, despite concerns that it, like a previous assessment by Richard Saunders, failed to consider updated X-rays as required by the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. Strack appealed the Board's determination. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that Petroski's medical opinion lacked substantial evidence due to the omission of updated X-rays. The matter was remitted for a proper determination of the SLU award in accordance with the established impairment guidelines.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Leg InjuryHip FractureMedical GuidelinesIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRemittalX-ray Requirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balodis v. Leavitt

Plaintiff John Balodis sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner found Balodis capable of work, but Balodis alleges disability since December 2003 due to multiple injuries, including a left hip fracture and advanced degenerative arthritis of the left knee. The court reviewed the ALJ's decision, which primarily relied on opinions from Dr. Skeene and Dr. Montorfano while rejecting Dr. Goldman's opinion, who was Balodis's treating physician. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly apply the "treating physician rule" by not providing sufficient reasons for not giving controlling weight to Dr. Goldman's opinions, especially considering the potential deterioration of Balodis's condition over time. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings to reconsider Dr. Goldman's opinion and the assessment of Balodis's credibility.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorRemand for ReconsiderationMedical Evidence EvaluationResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkDegenerative Joint DiseaseLeft Hip Fracture
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barcacel v. City of Yonkers

The plaintiff, who reported feeling dizzy and nauseous, was struck by a police vehicle in Yonkers, Westchester County, on August 29, 2013, suffering a fractured right hand and other injuries. The police officer, Bracken, driving an emergency services truck during an emergency response, made a left turn into a driveway and did not see the plaintiff, only hearing screams from under the truck. Police reports attributed the crash to "human error/confusion on the part of the pedestrian" and acknowledged it was avoidable by both the pedestrian and the driver. The court analyzed whether the "reckless disregard" standard (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e)) or "ordinary negligence" applies, concluding that ordinary negligence governs the driver's failure to observe the plaintiff. The court found that while serious injury was established due to the fracture, issues of fact remain regarding the defendants' negligence, leading to the denial of both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceRecklessness StandardEmergency Vehicle OperationPolice MisconductPersonal InjuryFracture InjuryPedestrian AccidentVehicle and Traffic LawCPLR
References
14
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. 534614
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Marcellino

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning claimant Joseph Marcellino's eligibility for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for permanent injuries to his left elbow and left thumb. Following an April 2015 accident, Marcellino had established claims for multiple injuries, undergoing surgery in 2016. Conflicting medical opinions arose between his treating orthopedic surgeon, Dimitro Christoforou, who assessed significant SLU percentages, and the carrier's orthopedic surgeon, Peter Spohn, who found minimal or no SLU for the left hand, wrist, and thumb. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited Spohn's opinion, awarding 15% SLU for the left wrist but no permanency for the left elbow or left thumb. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that the Board has the discretion to resolve conflicting medical opinions and reject medical evidence even without opposing proof, finding their determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsCredibility AssessmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardOrthopedic InjuriesElbow Injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,099 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