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. CV-24-2052
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

Claimant John Maini appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left foot, resulting from a ruptured Achilles tendon suffered in June 2022. The Board had modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 40% SLU. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board properly credited the opinion of the employer's consultant, whose interpretation of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically special consideration 6 regarding Achilles tendon ruptures, was consistent with the plain language of the guidelines and prior case law. The Court emphasized that range of motion deficits solely attributable to the Achilles tendon rupture could not be added to the SLU value assigned under special consideration 6, thereby supporting the 22.5% award.

schedule loss of useAchilles tendon ruptureworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionsubstantial evidencemaximum medical improvementrange of motionappellate revieworthopedic surgeonpermanent impairment
References
12
Case No. 534152
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maurice Blue

Claimant Maurice Blue sustained a right leg injury in 2016, leading to a workers' compensation claim for his right knee. His physician diagnosed a medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia patella, initially recommending a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) but later limiting it to 10% based on the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded 50% SLU, but the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to 10%, strictly applying a special consideration for chondromalacia patella and disregarding the meniscal tear. The Appellate Division found the Board's interpretation irrational, stating it leads to inequitable outcomes where greater injury results in lesser compensation. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the restrictive interpretation of the guidelines and remitting the matter for a proper assessment of the evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryChondromalacia PatellaMeniscus TearMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEquity in CompensationRange of Motion DeficitsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
33
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03565
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Matter of Blue v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Claimant Maurice Blue sustained a work-related right leg injury in December 2016, with his claim for workers' compensation benefits established for a right knee injury including a medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia patella. His physician initially assessed a 50% schedule loss of use (SLU) based on range of motion deficits but, applying a special consideration in the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for chondromalacia patella, limited his opinion to 10% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) adopted this 10% SLU, reversing a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) award of 50%. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found the WCB's interpretation of the guidelines irrational and inconsistent with the Workers' Compensation Law, as it resulted in claimants with more severe injuries receiving lesser compensation. The court reversed the WCB's decision regarding the preclusion of additional SLU for other knee impairments and remitted the matter for a proper assessment.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryChondromalacia PatellaMeniscus TearMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEquitable ApplicationJudicial Precedent
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1993

Claim of Patella v. Accettola

The claimant sustained an occupational disease, a finding affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the claimant's duties were not typical for a receptionist, and thus, her condition should not be considered an occupational disease. The court found no basis to reverse the Board's decisions and upheld the finding that the claimant's condition constituted an occupational disease. The decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board were affirmed without costs.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealsReceptionist DutiesEmployer AppealBoard Decision UpheldAffirmed DecisionWork-Related InjuryClaimant Rights
References
0
Case No. ADJ7834593
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GEORGE MOEN, III vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding a lien claim for a human tendon used in applicant's knee surgery. While the WCJ correctly found the services were necessary, neither party provided sufficient evidence to determine the reasonable value of the lien. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further development of the record. Lien claimant must prove its bill was not bundled and present evidence of a reasonable fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantAccess MediquipIndustrial InjuryKnee InjuryDeputy SheriffACL Tendon ReplacementPatella Tendon AllograftHuman TendonBundled Payment
References
1
Case No. ADJ8182717, ADJ8253375, ADJ8253377
Regular
May 18, 2018

VICTOR MCGILL vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a judge's decision invalidating a chiropractic QME panel. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the judge's order was not a final determination. However, the Board granted removal, finding that an orthopedic QME panel was necessary for the applicant's foot and Achilles tendon injuries, as chiropractic was not the appropriate specialty. The decision rescinds the judge's order and returns the matter for further proceedings to obtain an additional orthopedic QME evaluation.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationQMEMedical DirectorChiropracticOrthopedic SurgeryPanelFindings of Fact and OrderMedical Unit
References
0
Case No. ADJ3835932
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

BEVERLY SMITH vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The applicant sought to reopen the case due to the retirement of an Agreed Medical Evaluator and alleged worsening of her condition. However, the Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause, as her claims were unsubstantiated, contradicted by surveillance evidence, and she did not exercise due diligence in seeking further evaluation. Consequently, the prior findings of industrial injury to the psyche and achilles tendon, with 24% permanent disability after apportionment, were upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheAchilles TendonOrthopedic Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Permanent DisabilityApportionmentPetition to Reopen
References
0
Case No. ADJ10725180 ADJ11229196
Regular
Aug 08, 2018

JOAQUIN ROSALES vs. SWANSON FAHRNEY FORD, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award of 8% permanent disability for the applicant's left elbow injury. The award was based on a panel QME's opinion that, while no scheduled impairment existed under the AMA Guides, other factors like constant pain, loss of strength, grasping difficulty, and tendon tears justified a rating under Table 13-22 and *Guzman*. The Board found Dr. Tabaddor's rationale sufficiently supported the impairment rating, distinguishing it from the "add-on" pain provisions addressed in *Blackledge*.

ADJ10725180ADJ11229196lateral epicondylitisAMA Guidespermanent disability ratingpanel qualified medical evaluatorKhosrow TabaddorMilpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman)scheduled impairmentwhole person impairment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antoinetta Corp. v. State

Claimant sought damages for personal injuries sustained on July 22, 1992, during the Empire State Games at the State University of New York at Albany. As a volunteer security force member, she fell into an unmarked steeplechase pit after the lights were turned off, severing her Achilles tendon. The State moved to dismiss, asserting workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy. The Court of Claims granted dismissal, finding claimant failed to plead the unavailability of workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board is the proper forum for determining whether an individual qualifies as an employee entitled to benefits.

Personal InjuryVolunteer WorkerExclusive RemedyMotion to DismissCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewAchilles Tendon InjuryPremises LiabilityState LiabilityEmpire State Games
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02919
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2020

Giannone v. City of New York

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker for the City of New York, suffered a biceps tendon tear while lifting a heavy "sausage bag" with a coworker who lost their grip. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an action alleging common-law negligence against the City and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, determining the injury stemmed from a risk inherent in the plaintiff's employment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court concluded that the City had demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, establishing that the coworker was not negligent and the injury was an inherent hazard of the job.

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerCommon-law NegligenceLoss of ConsortiumSummary JudgmentInherent Hazard DoctrineEmployer DutyAppellate ReviewBiceps Tendon InjuryCoworker Negligence
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 23 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