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

Claim of Jarvis v. Stewart Airport Diner

The claimant, a waitress with a history of back problems, sought workers' compensation benefits after experiencing sudden numbness while working. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that she suffered an occupational disease due to the aggravation of a preexisting dormant condition, awarding her benefits. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the claimant's employment aggravated her dormant back condition, leading to a new disability.

Occupational diseasePreexisting conditionAggravation of injuryWorkers' compensation benefitsWaitressingBack injuryDisabilitySubstantial evidenceRepetitive occupational microtraumaDormant condition
References
5
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02604 [204 AD3d 1289]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Minichino v. Amazon.Com DEDC LLC

Claimant, Alexandra Minichino, a picker at Amazon.com DEDC LLC, filed for workers' compensation benefits after experiencing numbness in her right arm and shoulder on December 20, 2018, attributing it to an occupational/repetitive stress injury. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim due to inconsistencies. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the decision, ruling that Minichino sustained an accidental and causally-related injury to her cervical spine. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its factual findings and resolution of conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseCausally-Related InjuryCervical SpineBoard DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCredibilityAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cicciarelli v. Westchester Health Care Corp.

The claimant, employed as a secretary, sustained an electrical shock in March 2006. She subsequently ceased working due to dizziness, cognitive problems, and numbness, leading her to apply for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the injury and awarded benefits, with the Workers' Compensation Board later modifying awards after June 2008 to a tentative rate. The employer and its third-party administrator appealed these determinations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for the accident's occurrence and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions. The employer's appeal regarding the denial of full Board review was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationElectrical ShockNeurological InjuryCognitive ProblemsNumbnessCausationSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard ReviewAppeal Abandoned
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1981

Claim of Nizich v. Robert F. Barreca, Inc.

A claimant, an insurance company adjuster, experienced chest pains and numbness after a near automobile collision during work on December 8, 1976. Despite an initial normal medical examination, symptoms recurred, leading to a heart attack on December 30, 1976. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a referee's finding, concluding that the emotional trauma from the near collision, superimposed on a dormant heart condition, precipitated the myocardial infarction, constituting a compensable accidental injury with related disability. This decision was supported by conflicting medical testimony which the Board, as the trier of fact, was free to accept or reject. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmotional TraumaMyocardial InfarctionCausal RelationshipAccidental InjuryMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCardiac EventInsurance Adjuster
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 1978

Claim of Rice v. Kavanagh Trucking Co.

On August 19, 1975, a truck driver experienced a numbing sensation and passed out twice while driving. He was later diagnosed with a myocardial infarction. The Workers' Compensation Board found that his work on that day constituted an accident within the meaning of the law, resulting in a causally related myocardial infarction. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, contending a lack of substantial evidence to support the findings of accident and causal relationship, asserting the claimant did not perform unusual work and medical testimony was insufficient. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strenuous work is relative to an individual's cardiac reserve and that the Board appropriately accepted the medical testimony supporting its conclusion that the claimant's work required sufficient physical exertion to cause the injury.

myocardial infarctiontruck driverphysical exertioncausal relationshipcardiac eventinadequate cardiac reserveworkers' compensation boardmedical expert testimonyappellate reviewsubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2003

Claim of Paradise v. Goulds Pump

In March 1993, the claimant suffered a cervical and thoracic spine strain/sprain while lifting a heavy carton at work. Although he initially recovered, he later developed recurring neck pain and numbness in his left hand. Neurosurgeon Webster Pilcher diagnosed nerve root compression at C5 and C6, attributing it to the 1993 work-related injury and recommending surgery. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier declined coverage. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found a causal relationship between the injury and the claimant's current condition, authorizing the surgery. The employer and carrier appealed, contending that the Board's finding was based on speculative medical opinion. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Pilcher's opinion had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationNerve Root CompressionCervical SpineThoracic SpineCausationMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceNeurosurgeonSpinal InjuryAppeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1979

Claim of Mitchell v. Nason's Delivery, Inc.

The claimant, a truck driver with 29 years of experience, suffered a myocardial infarction at work on August 16, 1978, while unloading heavy cartons from his employer's truck. He experienced symptoms like numbness, shortness of breath, and profuse sweating, leading to hospitalization. During the hearing, two doctors testified that his work efforts did not contribute to the heart attack. However, Dr. Smith provided a medical opinion, supported by a detailed hypothesis, stating that the claimant's exertion on that day could have precipitated the myocardial infarction, irrespective of his accustomed activity. The Workers’ Compensation Board, relying on Dr. Smith's testimony and legal precedents regarding the certainty of medical opinions, found sufficient stress to establish a causal relationship between the employment and the myocardial infarction. The decision of the Board was affirmed, with costs awarded against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Workers' CompensationHeart attackMyocardial infarctionExertionCausal relationshipMedical opinionSubstantial evidenceEmployment-related injuryOccupational stressAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiBlasi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Frank DiBlasi sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits, citing disability due to depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, and limb numbness. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. DiBlasi appealed, arguing the Appeals Council failed to consider new material evidence (Dr. Rinzler's assessment), erred by not remanding for clarification of a prior medical opinion, and ignored a psychiatrist's letter. The court found the new evidence cumulative and not material, and that earlier records consistently reflected DiBlasi's difficulties. Ultimately, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that DiBlasi could perform simple, routine, unskilled tasks with minimal stress and contact, and that such jobs exist in the national economy. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security BenefitsDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentDepressionDiabetesGlobal Assessment of Functioning
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2003

Baez v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered a judgment on or about July 16, 2003, upholding a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $380,000 for future pain and suffering. This judgment also brought up for review an order from November 26, 2002, which denied the defendants' motion to deem the damages verdict excessive. The plaintiff, a 56-year-old home-health-aide, sustained a severe comminuted midshaft humeral fracture in her right arm, requiring multiple surgeries including rod and plate placements, and extensive physical therapy. Despite healing, she was left with limited forearm rotation, numbness, hand weakness, and three large keloid scars. The court unanimously affirmed the damages awards, finding them to be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, referencing CPLR 5501 [c] and Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp.

Humeral fracturePain and sufferingDamages awardJury verdictAppellate affirmationSurgical interventionPhysical therapyKeloid scarsLimited range of motionMedical hardware
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 12 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