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

Gonzalez v. General Motors Assembly Division

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed on September 17, 1979. The Board had affirmed an award to the claimant for a 100% loss of vision in their left eye, determined to be causally related to an accidental injury sustained on February 11, 1976. The appellate court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers' Compensation Board against the employer.

Workers' CompensationVision LossEye InjuryCausalityBoard DecisionAppealSubstantial EvidenceAffirmedInjury Claim
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. ADJ8954364
Regular
Jul 06, 2015

MARK FINNEY vs. ZURICH INSURANCE, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ8954364, involved applicant Mark Finney seeking reconsideration of a decision that denied permanent impairment from a left eye injury. Finney argued he had developed glaucoma and sustained vision loss due to the injury. The Workers' Compensation Judge found no substantial evidence that the glaucoma was caused by the injury, nor was there sufficient evidence of specific vision loss as defined by the AMA Guides. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, upholding the original decision that while future complications could arise, there was no current permanent impairment.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedPermanent ImpairmentLeft Eye InjuryGlaucomaVision LossAMA GuidesPrimary Treating PhysicianBilateral Vision LossMyopic Astigmatism
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mantzakos v. P.A.O. Parking Corp.

The claimant suffered a work-related eye injury in April 1995, necessitating surgery for a metallic foreign body and lens replacement, which restored his vision to 20/20. An issue arose concerning a schedule loss of use award under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (s). The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the award, interpreting 'corrected loss of vision' to exclude surgical implants, limiting it to eyeglasses or contact lenses based on legislative history. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational and noting that any changes would require legislative action.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseEye InjurySurgical Lens ImplantVision RestorationStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCorrective DevicesUncorrected VisionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ramadhan v. Morgans Hotel Group Management, LLC

The Board initially concluded that the claimant was not totally disabled despite a 100% schedule loss of use of both eyes, arguing he retained some vision. The claimant contended that he met the criteria for 'loss of both eyes' for total disability, referencing a previous Board decision (Max W. Fritzsch) where a claimant with some vision was deemed permanently totally disabled. The court concurred with the claimant, asserting that the Board was obligated to either adhere to its established precedent or provide a rationale for deviating from it. Therefore, the decision is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings, with instructions to either follow the Fritzsch precedent or provide an appropriate explanation for any departure.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseVision ImpairmentLegal PrecedentStare DecisisRemittalBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewConsistency in Adjudication
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1983

Claim of Salvi v. Vanguard Plumbing & Heating Corp.

A 17-year-old claimant, injured in 1979 by a projectile striking his left eye, sustained a 100% vision loss without a contact lens, which he claims he cannot tolerate for more than a few hours. The employer conceded liability for an award if intolerance was proven but disputed the sufficiency of medical evidence. The claimant consistently reported discomfort and headaches to his ophthalmologist, Dr. Dennis Gormley, who, despite finding no physical evidence, confirmed the claimant's inability to wear the lens for extended periods. The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision, finding that the claimant's subjective complaints, supported by the course of medical treatment and reports, constituted substantial evidence of intolerance to the contact lens, thus upholding the award for 100% loss of vision.

Vision LossContact Lens IntoleranceSubjective ComplaintsMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEye InjuryMinorsDouble AwardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04413 [162 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Tobin v. Finger Lakes DDSO

Kristi M. Tobin, a support aide, sustained injuries in April 2012 after being assaulted by a client, leading to a workers' compensation claim established for various injuries including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD)/complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of her right face. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded schedule loss of use for vision loss and facial disfigurement. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, classifying claimant's RSD/CRPS and ptosis as a nonschedule permanent partial disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rescinding the prior awards, and remitting the case for further record development regarding loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence supported the nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification due to the claimant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening ptosis, consistent with not receiving both schedule loss of use and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards for the same work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseReflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Facial DisfigurementWage-Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,187 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