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
Apr 07, 2000

Claim of Moreines v. Lawrence Nursing Care Center

Claimant, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) by 1988, ceased employment in March 1995 due to her work environment exacerbating her condition. She filed a workers' compensation claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board initially ruled against a causal relationship between her work and MS exacerbation. Following an appeal, the Board amended its decision, affirming the carrier's consultant found no causal link, whose credibility was maintained under cross-examination. The claimant appealed both decisions, arguing the consultant's report was equivocal and the Board should have accepted her expert's unequivocal testimony. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the conflict in medical opinion was within the Board's province to resolve, and the carrier's consultant provided substantial evidence for the Board's finding of no causal link.

Workers' CompensationMultiple SclerosisCausalityMedical OpinionExpert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewDisease ExacerbationWork EnvironmentCredibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Norberg v. Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp.

The claimant suffered a neck injury at work in December 1997, subsequently experiencing numbness and being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causal relationship between the accident and the aggravation of multiple sclerosis. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision due to insufficient medical evidence supporting the causal link. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the treating physician's opinion on causation, based solely on temporal proximity and lacking scientific support, was speculative and therefore justifiably disregarded.

Multiple SclerosisCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianSpeculationTemporal ProximityAggravation of InjuryNeck InjuryAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. STK 196283
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

DEBORAH JONES vs. MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN And ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award due to incomplete medical evidence regarding apportionment. The Board found that further development of the record was necessary to address the applicant's psychiatric condition and pre-existing multiple sclerosis, as recommended by the applicant's Qualified Medical Examiner. The case was returned to the trial level for new proceedings and a decision.

ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityApportionmentFurther Medical TreatmentDevelop the RecordMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial EvidenceIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ3931400 (MON 0218725) ADJ4561489 (MON 0257189)
Regular
Nov 07, 2008

ELLEAN SLAUGHTER vs. CENTINELA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER/TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

This case involves a petition to reopen a worker's compensation claim where the applicant's permanent disability increased from 77.5% to 100% due to chronic pain syndrome. The defendant argued for apportionment to non-industrial conditions like multiple sclerosis and chronic fatigue syndrome. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and remanded the case for a new permanent disability rating, specifically requiring apportionment of the increased disability to the applicant's non-industrial conditions as per *Vargas v. Atascadero State Hospital*.

ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNew and Further DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeMultiple SclerosisChronic Fatigue SyndromeAgreed Medical ExaminersSB 899Vargas v. Atascadero State Hospital
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06828
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Whitney v. Pregis Corp.

Claimant, a maintenance technician, suffered injuries in a work-related fall in December 2013, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Shortly after, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) and sought to amend his claim to include trauma-induced or exacerbated MS. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the amendment and apportioned his disability 40% to the work injury and 60% to the preexisting MS, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that apportionment was inappropriate as there was no evidence that the claimant's preexisting MS condition had previously precluded him from performing his job duties prior to the accident. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPreexisting ConditionMultiple SclerosisWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewDisabilityMedical EvidenceCausationRemittal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1990

Claim of Harris v. Syracuse University

The claimant, employed by Syracuse University, failed to disclose pre-existing multiple sclerosis on a pre-employment health statement in August 1986. After applying for disability benefits in March 1987, the self-insured employer initially paid but then rejected the claim in May 1987, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 220 (6) due to the false statement. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not precluded from receiving benefits, finding no evidence that the false statement was made specifically to obtain disability benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting § 220 (6) narrowly and noting that the claimant was not obligated to disclose medical conditions not related to a bona fide occupational qualification.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsFalse StatementPre-employment MisrepresentationMultiple SclerosisEmployer Rejection of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 220(6)Legislative IntentStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Occupational Qualification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liss v. Nassau County

Barry Liss filed claims against Nassau County and its departments, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. Liss sustained work-related injuries and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, requiring accommodations for working at heights and in hot temperatures. He contended that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to further injuries. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claims, finding them not time-barred and issues of fact regarding reasonable accommodation and qualification. However, state law claims for NYSHRL and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with punitive damages, were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely Notice of Claim and the non-recoverability of punitive damages against municipal defendants.

ADANYSHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFailure to AccommodateEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNassau CountyMultiple Sclerosis
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wachtel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

The plaintiff, Mr. Wachtel, sued his health insurance carrier, Empire (previously Metropolitan), for reimbursement of a manually operated wheelchair for his wife, Carrie R. Wachtel, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Although the insurer had provided a motorized wheelchair, Mrs. Wachtel's Orthodox Jewish faith precludes its use on the Jewish Sabbath. The court considered whether the insurer could be compelled to provide an additional benefit based on religious beliefs. It found that the insurer's definition of 'medically necessary' lacked clear exclusions applicable to this situation. Therefore, the court ruled that the manual wheelchair was medically necessary given Mrs. Wachtel's inability to use the motorized chair one day a week due to religious tenets, and entered judgment for the plaintiff.

Religious AccommodationHealth Insurance CoverageMedical NecessityWheelchair ReimbursementOrthodox JudaismSabbath ObservanceInsurance Contract InterpretationDiscrimination in InsuranceMultiple SclerosisSmall Claims Court
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mahoney v. Apfel

Plaintiff Joan Mahoney sought Disability Insurance Benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found her not disabled, believing she could return to her past work as a legal secretary. This decision was upheld by the Appeals Council. Upon review, the District Court found the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the ALJ improperly disregarded the treating physician's opinion, who consistently diagnosed multiple sclerosis and considered Mahoney disabled, and also improperly discredited Mahoney's subjective complaints. Consequently, the court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating benefits, highlighting Mahoney's fluctuating but persistent MS symptoms that rendered full-time work impossible.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActMultiple SclerosisResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardSubjective Complaints CredibilityPost Traumatic Stress DisorderNeurological Impairment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. STONE WAY LTD. PARTNERSHIP

Sheila Barnes appealed a default judgment in a forcible detainer action filed by Stone Way Limited Partnership. Barnes, suffering from multiple sclerosis, failed to appear at trial due to hospitalization, leading to the default judgment. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, which requires a defaulting party to prove their failure to appear was not intentional, that they have a meritorious defense, and that a new trial would not injure the plaintiff. The court found Barnes met all elements, demonstrating her absence was justified by medical reasons and she presented valid defenses regarding lease violations and landlord retaliation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by denying Barnes's motion for a new trial.

Default judgmentForcible detainerMultiple sclerosisContinuanceMeritorious defenseNew trialCraddock testAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewTexas Property Code
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,516 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