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
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 2016-07-0378
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2016

King, Richard v, Big Binder Express, LLC

Richard King, an employee, suffered a work injury in March 2015, leading to a nasal fracture, blurred vision, and headaches. His treating ophthalmologist, Dr. Jason Sullivan, assessed a 34% visual impairment, which the employer, Big Binder Express, LLC, considered "skewed" and sought an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME). Mr. King opposed this, arguing Dr. Sullivan was an employer-approved physician and the request was solely to obtain a lower rating, not to ascertain recovery or work-relatedness. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied Big Binder's request, finding it unreasonable because Dr. Sullivan was already the approved physician and the IME's true purpose was to seek another impairment rating, contrary to statutory intent. The court cited precedents emphasizing that employers do not have an unlimited right to repeated examinations merely due to dissatisfaction with results.

IME DenialEmployer RequestMedical EvaluationImpairment Rating DisputeOphthalmological InjuryNeurological ImpairmentWorkers' Compensation LawTennessee LawReasonableness StandardTreating Physician
References
7
Case No. ADJ12427109
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

RICHARD ADAMS vs. MR. PLASTICS, INC., EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's right hand. The applicant claimed a fracture occurred while operating a machine, though medical records initially focused on a non-industrial injury from a ladder. Crucially, a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) opined the fracture was consistent with the applicant's described work mechanism. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning which prioritized the QME's opinion and medical records documenting the fracture prior to termination, over the defendant's arguments regarding proof of injury and temporary disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityMachine OperatorRight Hand InjuryScaphoid FractureAOE/COEContemporaneous Medical RecordsQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dr. Roland
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Onley v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

This workers' compensation case addresses the appropriate scheduled member for a compensable injury and the extent of disability. The employee suffered a severe comminuted fracture to the first metacarpal bone in his left hand and a laceration on June 8, 1988. An orthopedic surgeon assessed a 63% permanent partial disability to the left thumb, which could also translate to hand or arm impairment, noting the fracture extended slightly into the wrist joint. The trial court awarded 60% permanent partial disability to the left thumb. On appeal, the court determined the injury was more appropriately classified as a disability to the left hand due to the fracture's location at the base of the thumb extending into the hand. Consequently, the judgment was modified to award 50% permanent partial disability to the left hand, affirming the trial court in all other respects.

Workers' CompensationScheduled InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityLeft Hand InjuryThumb FractureMetacarpal BoneMedical TestimonyOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewTrial Court Modification
References
6
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. 2023-04-00747
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2023

Redmon, Wetonia v. Dr. Daniel Jefferson Barnes

Wetonis A. Redmon sought medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a right-arm fracture that occurred at work. During an Expedited Hearing on August 1, 2023, the Court found that although the injury happened in the course and scope of her employment, Ms. Redmon failed to establish that it arose primarily from the conditions of her employment. Ms. Redmon tripped and fell while carrying a tray, sustaining a displaced comminuted fracture in her right arm, but could not identify a specific workplace hazard causing the fall. The Court determined the injury was idiopathic and lacked a peculiar or additional employment hazard. Consequently, the Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits, as well as attorney's fees.

Idiopathic InjuryWorkplace FallRight Arm FractureTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment DenialWorkers' Compensation ClaimsCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployment HazardCausationExpedited Hearing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Park v. City of New York

In a personal injury action arising from a construction site accident, the Supreme Court, New York County, initially reduced a jury's award for past pain and suffering from $1,500,000 to $600,000. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified by the Appellate Division. The appellate court further directed a new trial on future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to a reduction of the award from $800,000 to $400,000. The decision was based on a comparison to similar cases involving comminuted elbow/arm fractures, multiple surgeries, and permanent limitations, while noting the plaintiff's non-dominant wrist fracture added little value as it resolved without surgery.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentDamagesPain and SufferingJury Award ReductionAppellate ReviewFractureElbow InjuryWrist InjuryStipulation
References
5
Case No. CA 13-02156
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2014

CLAYPOOLE, CHRISTINA v. TWIN CITY AMBULANCE CORP.

Plaintiffs Christina and Joseph Claypoole brought a personal injury action against Twin City Ambulance Corp., alleging negligence by defendant's employees resulted in Christina sustaining a hip fracture during ambulance transport. Defendant sought summary judgment, denying negligence and lack of causation. The Supreme Court denied the motion, leading to defendant's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable. The court found that the evidence, including Christina being unconscious and in defendant's exclusive custody when she sustained the fracture, raised triable issues of fact regarding defendant's negligence, thus properly denying the summary judgment motion.

Personal InjuryNegligenceAmbulanceHip FractureRes Ipsa LoquiturSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive ControlProximate CauseMedical Transport
References
13
Case No. 14-04-00320-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2005

Kenneth Barchus v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Kenneth Barchus appealed a trial court's judgment denying him lifetime income benefits for a work-related brain injury sustained in 1995 while employed by Barchus Barber Shop. The trial court, relying on a pre-1997 version of the Texas Labor Code, concluded that a skull fracture was required for Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs), despite finding Barchus sustained an injury to skull structures and suffered incurable insanity. The Court of Appeals reviewed the statutory interpretation, finding that 'injury to the skull' does not demand a 'fracture of the skull' and that the trial court's conclusion was inconsistent with the statute's plain language. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendering judgment that Barchus is entitled to LIBs.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsStatutory ConstructionBrain InjurySkull InjuryLegislative IntentAdministrative InterpretationTexas Labor CodeDe Novo ReviewAppellate Court
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2013

Claypoole v. Twin City Ambulance Corp.

Plaintiffs, including Christina Claypoole, initiated a personal injury action against an unnamed defendant, alleging negligence during Claypoole's ambulance transport which led to a hip fracture. The defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting a lack of negligence and evidence of injury under their care. The Supreme Court denied this motion, prompting the defendant's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable based on the defendant's own submissions, thereby establishing triable issues of fact concerning negligence. The evidence indicated that Claypoole, while unconscious and in the exclusive custody of the defendant, sustained a hip fracture, and experienced pain only after being in the ambulance, reinforcing the applicability of res ipsa loquitur.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturSummary JudgmentAmbulance TransportHip FractureAppellate ReviewExclusive ControlTriable Issues of FactProximate Cause
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 292 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