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
Sep 28, 2017

Barrett v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Brian Scott Barrett challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his disability benefits application. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found Barrett not disabled, concluding he could perform light work despite impairments like a right knee meniscal tear, left shoulder rotator cuff tear, neck and low back degenerative disc disease, and depressive disorder. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. Barrett moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing errors in weighing medical opinions, RFC determination, and credibility. The Court denied both motions for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the ALJ, citing the ALJ's failure to properly apply the treating physician rule to Dr. Dowling's opinions and to clarify reliance on a Single Decisionmaker's RFC assessment.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityDepressive DisorderKnee InjuryShoulder InjuryBack PainNeck Pain
References
38
Case No. 534152
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maurice Blue

Claimant Maurice Blue sustained a right leg injury in 2016, leading to a workers' compensation claim for his right knee. His physician diagnosed a medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia patella, initially recommending a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) but later limiting it to 10% based on the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded 50% SLU, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to 10%, strictly applying a special consideration for chondromalacia patella and disregarding the meniscal tear. The Appellate Division found the Board's interpretation irrational, stating it leads to inequitable outcomes where greater injury results in lesser compensation. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the restrictive interpretation of the guidelines and remitting the matter for a proper assessment of the evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryChondromalacia PatellaMeniscus TearMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEquity in CompensationRange of Motion DeficitsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. New York City Department of Buildings

The case involves an appeal concerning a claimant's right knee injury, initially sustained in a 1999 fall while working for the New York City Department of Buildings. After an initial workers' compensation claim, the claimant filed a second claim in 2001 for a pseudo-meniscal cyst in the same knee. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge deemed it a new injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the cyst causally related to the 1999 incident. This court affirmed the Board's amended decision, relying on an impartial orthopedic surgeon's testimony that the cyst developed from either synovial fluid leakage post-1999 surgeries or a degenerating meniscus tear, not a secondary injury.

Knee injuryWorkers' CompensationCausationMedical evidenceSynovial cystMeniscus tearBoard decisionAppealOrthopedic surgeonPrior injury
References
6
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06377
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2014

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, granting National Union Fire Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment against JRP Contracting, Inc. The court declared that National Union had no duty to defend or indemnify JRP in an underlying personal injury action. National Union successfully argued that the plaintiff's alleged injuries (ligament and meniscal tears) were not "grave injuries" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, National Union's policy contained an exclusion for "liability assumed under a contract," further absolving it from the contractual indemnification claim. JRP's claim of prejudice due to National Union's withdrawal from defense was also rejected, as National Union had expressly reserved its rights.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInsurance Policy ExclusionContractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2009

Claim of Linz v. Maine Endwell School District

The claimant sustained a work-related left knee injury in 2001, leading to surgery and a schedule loss of use award in 2004, after which the case was closed. In 2008, the self-insured employer sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this application, determining that the case had been reopened in August 2007 by a medical report from treating orthopedist Daniel Federowicz. The employer appealed this denial. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Dr. Federowicz's report, which detailed a significant worsening and change in the claimant's knee condition, including progressive osteoarthritis and suspected meniscal tears, served as a valid application to reopen the case. Consequently, the reopening occurred within seven years of the injury, rendering Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a inapplicable for shifting liability to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation BoardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of Use AwardMedical ReportChange in Medical ConditionKnee InjuryOsteoarthritisMeniscal TearLiability ShiftingSeven-Year Lapse Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 25, 2013, which denied his application to include a partial right rotator cuff tear under his existing 2002 work-related injury claim. The Board found that claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2002 automobile accident and the 2009 rotator cuff tear, despite the opinion of his orthopedist. The orthopedist acknowledged that age-related degeneration could cause such tears independently of trauma. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the orthopedist's testimony did not convincingly prove a causal relationship.

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. 518426
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2014

MatterofAndersonvNewYorkCityDepartmentofDesign&Construction

Donald Anderson, the claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a 2002 work-related automobile accident. Initially, his claim was established for neck and back injuries, but in 2005, the Workers' Compensation Board determined he had no continuing disability, noting he was magnifying symptoms. In 2009, Anderson was diagnosed with a partial right rotator cuff tear, which he sought to include under his existing claim, alleging a causal link to the 2002 accident. The Board denied this application, finding a lack of established causal relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Anderson failed to present convincing evidence from his orthopedist or any other proof to establish the necessary causal connection between the 2002 accident and his right rotator cuff tear.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRotator Cuff TearAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewShoulder InjurySubstantial EvidenceCausation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2008

Taylor v. American Radio Dispatcher, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The defendants established their prima facie case by submitting reports of independent medical examinations. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as her experts’ reports, opining on a tear of the anterior talo-fibular ligament and a tear of the meniscus of the right knee, lacked objective, contemporaneous evidence of the extent and duration of alleged physical limitations. Additionally, there was no contemporaneous medical proof for her claim that her injury prevented her from performing substantially all of her usual activities for 90 of the 180 days following the accident. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Serious injuryInsurance Lawsummary judgmentmedical examinationanterior talo-fibular ligamentmeniscus tearobjective evidencephysical limitationscustomary activitiesappellate division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendall v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

Plaintiffs Holly and Richard Kendall appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to defendants in their toxic tort and negligence action. The Kendalls' home was contaminated by tear gas during a SWAT incident, followed by remediation efforts using various cleaning agents. They alleged adverse health effects from residual tear gas and cleaning chemicals, suing their insurer (Arnica Mutual) and remediation contractors (USA Decon, Duct and Vent, and Robert Demaret). The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding plaintiffs failed to establish specific and general causation linking their post-remediation exposure to their alleged injuries. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that the expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient to raise a question of fact regarding causation.

Toxic tortNegligenceSummary judgmentCausationExpert testimonyTear gas exposureRemediationChemical contaminationHomeowner's insurance claimAppellate review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 55 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