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

Weldon v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a State Police investigator, sought disability retirement benefits due to a left shoulder injury sustained in 2003 and 2008, claiming permanent incapacitation. The application was initially denied, and this denial was upheld after a hearing, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish permanent incapacity. The respondent affirmed this determination, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, citing the lack of permanency findings in the petitioner's medical records and expert opinions from a neurologist and orthopedic surgeon who found no permanent disability. The orthopedic surgeon suggested the condition, diagnosed as chronic regional pain syndrome, was a temporary total disability that could improve with aggressive physical therapy. Consequently, the respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the petition was dismissed.

State PoliceDisability Retirement BenefitsPermanent IncapacityShoulder InjuryMedical RecordsNeurologist OpinionOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionChronic Regional Pain SyndromeTemporary Total DisabilityCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanDermark v. Frontier Insurance

In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer and its carrier challenged two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's permanent total disability. The claimant sustained a back injury in 1998 and was initially found to have a permanent partial disability. However, the Board later modified the award, concluding the claimant had a permanent total disability after August 2004, a finding supported by the testimony of her treating orthopedic surgeon despite conflicting medical evidence. The employer also contested the denial of their applications for reconsideration and/or full Board review, arguing insufficient evidence and an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no arbitrary or capricious action in denying reconsideration, as no new evidence was presented.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard's DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of LaClaire v. Birds Eye Foods, Inc.

Claimant sustained work-related injuries to her left and right knees in 2007. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently determined that her condition warranted a marked permanent partial disability classification, entitling her to continuing disability benefits rather than a schedule loss of use award. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed this determination. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including the claimant's orthopedic surgeon's testimony regarding crepitus, swelling, and severe pain, supported the marked permanent partial disability classification. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in requiring additional proof concerning any overpayments made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuriesAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentOverpaymentsDisability Benefits
References
6
Case No. ADJ7099916
Regular
Jun 20, 2014

ANGELICA SANCHEZ vs. TORRES FARM LABOR, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to the applicant's cervical spine and psyche, in addition to admitted injuries, and awarding temporary disability. The defendant argued the temporary disability award was improper as the psychologist relied upon by the judge did not review orthopedic records, and that EDD benefits should be credited. The WCJ conceded the temporary disability finding lacked substantial evidence, agreeing the psychologist's opinion was insufficient due to lack of review of the orthopedic records. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's recommendation to limit temporary disability to the period found by the orthopedic QME. A dissenting opinion argued that substantial evidence, including the primary treating physician's reports, supported the initial temporary disability award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPsychiatric InjuryOrthopedic InjurySubstantial Medical EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorApportionmentPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ2434971 (OAK 0238163)
Regular
Dec 02, 2010

ANA RODRIGUEZ vs. SHERATON PALACE HOTEL, TOKIO MARINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that the applicant, Ana Rodriguez, did not sustain new and further permanent disability subsequent to a 1997 stipulated award. The judge found her testimony regarding increased orthopedic and psychiatric symptoms to be not credible. Medical evidence from Dr. Edington indicated no orthopedic increase in disability since the award, and the psychiatric disability became permanent and stationary concurrently with the orthopedic condition. Therefore, the judge concluded there was no "new and further" disability as defined by Labor Code Section 5410.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityPsychiatric Disability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dingee v. DiNapoli

The petitioner sought disability retirement benefits after sustaining a back injury at work. The Retirement System denied the application, a decision upheld by the Hearing Officer and subsequently by the respondent, citing the petitioner's failure to prove permanent incapacitation. In reviewing this determination, the court considered conflicting medical opinions from a chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon, both suggesting that further medical treatment, including weight loss and physical therapy, could potentially alleviate the petitioner's condition. The court found substantial evidence to support the respondent's decision that the petitioner was not permanently disabled due to the availability of further medical treatment. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination and dismissed the petition.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPermanent IncapacitationCorrection Officer DutiesBack InjuryHerniated DiscConflicting Medical EvidenceOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionChiropractor OpinionWeight Loss RecommendationPhysical Therapy Recommendation
References
7
Case No. ADJ7558173
Regular
Oct 28, 2014

JESSIE MOORE vs. PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found the applicant was not temporarily totally disabled after her retirement. The Board determined that while the applicant stated her retirement was reluctant, the primary reasons cited were hostile work environment and emotional stress, not solely orthopedic injuries. Medical evidence did not substantially support the claim that the admitted orthopedic injuries alone rendered her temporarily totally disabled. Consequently, temporary disability benefits were not awarded for the orthopedic injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJessie MoorePasadena Area Community College DistrictKeenan & Associatesstatute of limitationstemporary disabilitycumulative traumacervical spinelumbar spineleft wrist
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,136 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