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
Aug 01, 1984

Claim of Furner v. Precision

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's eligibility for disability benefits following gastroplasty and bilateral distal salpingectomy. The employer and insurance carrier argued that the surgery for morbid obesity was purely elective, therefore disqualifying the claimant from benefits. However, the Board found, supported by medical reports from the surgeon and other evidence, that the award of disability benefits was warranted. The court affirmed this decision, concluding that the Board had substantial evidence to determine that the claimant's excessive obesity falls within the scope of "injury" and "sickness" as defined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 201 (8) and that the surgery constituted a medically prescribed course of treatment.

Morbid ObesityDisability BenefitsGastroplastyBilateral Distal SalpingectomyElective SurgeryMedical NecessitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board AppealMedical ReportsSickness Definition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related slip and fall in 2002, leading to injuries including his head, neck, back, and knees. His morbid obesity contributed to his back and knee issues, prompting him to seek authorization for gastric bypass surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge approved the surgery, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the surgery causally related to the compensable injuries. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the causal link. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting substantial evidence that the claimant's weight gain was a result of the sedentary lifestyle imposed by his injuries, and that the surgery would aid in his recovery.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryGastric Bypass SurgeryMorbid ObesityMedical Treatment AuthorizationCausationKnee InjuryBack InjurySedentary LifestyleBoard Decision Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tames v. New York Medical College

Claimant, Director of Adolescent Medicine at New York Medical College, experienced an excessive workload and work-related stress, alongside a medical malpractice investigation, leading to depression, morbid obesity, and suicidal ideation. He filed a workers' compensation claim in 1998, which the Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined as an occupational disease and later amended to an accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed these Board decisions, arguing against the change in theory and the finding of compensable injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decisions, ruling that the Board had the authority to modify its findings and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant’s stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers, thus constituting a compensable accidental injury.

Occupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryWorkers CompensationWork-Related StressMajor DepressionSuicidal IdeationMedical MalpracticeIncreased WorkloadAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2007

Henderson v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a New York City bus driver for nearly 20 years, filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging that recurring exposure to exhaust fumes and dust at work caused severe asthma. Initial medical opinions conflicted, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to find a work-related exacerbation and permanent partial disability. The employer appealed, prompting the Workers’ Compensation Board to refer the claimant to an impartial medical specialist. The specialist diagnosed marked moderate restrictive pulmonary function caused by morbid obesity, not work conditions. Based on this, the Board disallowed the claim, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the referral proper and the Board’s determination supported by substantial evidence.

asthmabus driverexhaust fumesdust exposureoccupational diseaseworkers' compensation benefitsmedical expert opinionimpartial medical specialistmorbid obesitypulmonary function
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lovell v. Colvin

Nicholas Adam Lovell ("plaintiff") appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits. After an initial denial in 2008 and a subsequent hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Edward I. Pitts, who also denied benefits, the Appeals Council remanded the case for further proceedings. ALJ Pitts again found plaintiff not disabled in July 2012, a decision that became final on May 23, 2013, when the Appeals Council denied review. Plaintiff and the Commissioner both moved for judgment on the pleadings. The District Court, presided by Judge David G. Larimer, affirmed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and applied correct legal standards regarding plaintiff's residual functional capacity despite impairments like morbid obesity, degenerative disc disease, and bipolar disorder.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility DeterminationLight WorkMorbid ObesityDegenerative Disc Disease
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rimler

Harriet Richman, a 37-year-old morbidly obese patient, was admitted to New York Hospital Center of Queens in July 1994. The hospital initiated an Article 81 Mental Hygiene Law proceeding to appoint a guardian due to her inability to manage personal needs and property. Richman, weighing between 400-500 pounds, refused to cooperate with discharge planning, accumulated uncashed Social Security checks, and faced eviction due to significant rent arrears. Despite her verbal competence, Dr. Lubin diagnosed her with a thinking disorder of borderline personality, leading to self-destructive and self-confounding behavior. The court found clear and convincing evidence of incapacity and appointed Jasmine Thomas and TOUCH, Inc. as coguardians for her personal needs and property management, waiving the bond requirement.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonMental Hygiene LawObesitySocial SecurityRent ArrearsDischarge PlanningBorderline PersonalityFunctional LimitationsProperty Management
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laramee v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff Laramee brought claims against her former employer, The Jewish Guild for the Blind (JGB), alleging employment discrimination based on disability (morbid obesity) and harassment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and New York State Human Rights Law. JGB moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Laramee had previously signed a severance agreement containing a knowing and voluntary release of all claims against the employer. The District Court examined the "totality of the circumstances" regarding the waiver, including Laramee's legal representation, time to review the agreement, and compensation received. Concluding that Laramee had knowingly and voluntarily waived her claims, the court granted JGB's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Additionally, JGB's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Laramee and her attorney was denied, as the court found the complaint was not frivolous.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSeverance AgreementWaiverRelease of ClaimsMotion to Dismiss
References
18
Case No. ADJ2430009
Regular
Feb 09, 2015

GIOVANNI SOSA vs. THE KROGER COMPANY, dba RALPHS GROCERY

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration on petitions from both the applicant and defendant regarding a decision filed December 1, 2014. The applicant appealed findings on industrial medical conditions, the need for medical treatment, temporary and permanent disability, and attorney fees. The defendant contested the finding that obesity was aggravated by the industrial injury, the failure to apportion permanent disability to obesity, and the occupational group rating. Reconsideration is necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues for a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetitions for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryInternal Systems InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryPsyche InjuryMedical TreatmentTemporary Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1998

Claim of A'Gard v. Major Builders Corp.

Claimant suffered a back injury in 1986, leading to a permanent partial disability. Years later, he developed significant obesity and diabetes, which he claimed were consequential to his original injury due to reduced physical activity and depression. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed this claim, and claimant appealed pro se, alleging procedural misconduct and civil rights violations. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no support for the claimant's procedural contentions. Medical testimony provided substantial evidence that the claimant's diabetes and obesity were attributable to preexisting conditions rather than being consequential to the initial back injury.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityDiabetesObesityConsequential InjuryMedical TestimonySedentary LifestyleGenetic PredispositionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 44 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