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

Christian v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

F. Christian sought accident disability retirement from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System for cataracts linked to a 1975 line-of-duty injury. Despite three ophthalmologists' reports indicating a causal link or aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the medical board denied the application twice, citing insufficient proof and without providing a basis for rejecting the medical evidence. The dissenting opinion by Justice Fein argued that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, advocating for a modification of the judgment to mandate reconsideration by the medical board. The dissent proposed that the medical board review all existing and new medical evidence and clearly state the reasons for its conclusions, emphasizing that the board members were not ophthalmologists and did not examine the petitioner.

Disability retirementCataractsLine of duty injuryMedical evidenceCausal relationshipAggravationPre-existing conditionMedical board reviewArbitrary and capriciousRemand
References
4
Case No. 2017-08-0676
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2018

Haley, Lawanda v. FedEx Express

Lawanda Haley, an employee of FedEx Express, sustained a left eye injury at work in November 2016. She sought medical and temporary disability benefits. The Court partially granted her request, ordering FedEx to pay temporary partial disability benefits from May 22 to June 18, 2017, and to reimburse her $442.30 for out-of-pocket eye drop expenses. However, her claims for temporary disability benefits for other periods and for new contact lenses were denied. The decision centered on a dispute over conflicting work-status notes from her treating ophthalmologist, Dr. Andrew Crothers, and whether FedEx was aware of her ability to return to full-duty work.

Workers' CompensationEye InjuryTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical ExpensesWork Status DisputePanel of PhysiciansCorneal TransplantOphthalmologistFedExTennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves an appeal by Mittl, an ophthalmologist, challenging a Division of Human Rights (DHR) order that found him liable for pregnancy discrimination. Mittl had terminated his secretary after his wife suspected the secretary was carrying his child and created problems. The DHR initially ruled in favor of the complainant, awarding her back pay and damages. The Appellate Division annulled the DHR's determination, suggesting Mittl's actions were to save his marriage rather than discriminate. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, stating it misapplied the substantial evidence standard of review. The Court found DHR's initial finding of discrimination was supported by substantial evidence and remitted the case for further proceedings regarding damages.

Pregnancy DiscriminationUnlawful TerminationHuman Rights LawExecutive Law § 296Substantial Evidence ReviewAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityEmployment LawDiscrimination ClaimCourt of Appeals Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1983

Claim of Salvi v. Vanguard Plumbing & Heating Corp.

A 17-year-old claimant, injured in 1979 by a projectile striking his left eye, sustained a 100% vision loss without a contact lens, which he claims he cannot tolerate for more than a few hours. The employer conceded liability for an award if intolerance was proven but disputed the sufficiency of medical evidence. The claimant consistently reported discomfort and headaches to his ophthalmologist, Dr. Dennis Gormley, who, despite finding no physical evidence, confirmed the claimant's inability to wear the lens for extended periods. The court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision, finding that the claimant's subjective complaints, supported by the course of medical treatment and reports, constituted substantial evidence of intolerance to the contact lens, thus upholding the award for 100% loss of vision.

Vision LossContact Lens IntoleranceSubjective ComplaintsMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEye InjuryMinorsDouble AwardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. 2024-60-0763
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

Adams, Pamela v. LHC Group, a/k/a SunCrest Companion Services

Pamela Adams, a licensed practical nurse, suffered a shoulder and head injury on March 3, 2023, while assisting a patient, with the employer, SunCrest Companion Services, accepting the claim. Ms. Adams subsequently sought referrals to ear, nose, and throat specialists and ophthalmologists due to visual changes and tinnitus, in addition to temporary disability benefits and attorney's fees. The Court denied her requests, finding that Dr. Subir Prasad, the authorized treating physician, did not believe the need for specialist treatment was more than 50% related to the work incident. Furthermore, the Court determined that Ms. Adams failed to act reasonably in attempting to return to light-duty work offered by SunCrest. Consequently, the Court ruled that Ms. Adams was unlikely to prevail at trial on her requests for medical benefits and temporary partial disability.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausation DisputeSpecialist ReferralExpedited HearingLight Duty OfferReturn to WorkTinnitusBlurred Vision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Dean Truck Line, Inc.

This worker's compensation case concerns Robert L. Anderson, a truck driver, who sustained an eye injury on May 24, 1979, while working for Dean Truck Line, leading to blindness in his right eye. The injury was found to have aggravated a pre-existing condition, herpes keratitis, which had weakened his eye. The trial court's finding of 100% disability was supported by material evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Wood, an ophthalmologist, who stated the injury likely played a role in the eye's perforation and subsequent deterioration. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding regarding causation and the applicability of the material evidence rule, denying damages for a frivolous appeal and punitive damages. However, the case was remanded to the trial court for recalculation of temporary total disability benefits, as the plaintiff was able to work during certain periods after the injury.

Worker's CompensationEye InjuryBlindnessAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionMaterial Evidence RuleTemporary Total DisabilityCausationMedical Expert TestimonyOphthalmologyCorneal Transplant
References
16
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
Showing 1-8 of 8 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