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. ADJ7838570
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

MARCO MILLAN vs. WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS, HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant's first petition for reconsideration and denied his second. The applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that his stroke and related injuries were not work-related, arguing a physiatrist's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence. The WCJ and Board found Dr. Schilling lacked the neurological expertise to establish industrial causation, and the consulting neurologist did not confirm it. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof with substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIndustrial CausationStrokeCirculatory SystemNegligenceBurden of ProofMedical EvidencePhysiatrist
References
3
Case No. ADJ9618682
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

SOLEDAD GARCIA vs. LYONS MAGNUS, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal from a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order that required her to treat within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). She argued the MPN lacked sufficient physiatrists, violating access standards, and sought to treat outside it. However, the Board denied removal, finding the applicant presented no evidence to support her claim that the MPN failed access standards or caused denial of treatment. The applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and a lack of evidence was the primary impediment to her case.

Petition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)Access StandardsPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)PhysiatristPain ManagementPetition DenialFindings of Fact and Order (F&O)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Rule 9767.5
References
4
Case No. 532849
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Matter of Patalan v. PAL Envtl.

Jerzy Patalan, an asbestos handler, sought workers' compensation benefits for alleged work-related injuries to his back, neck, knees, wrists, and left foot, attributing them to repetitive strain. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, finding no causal link between his employment and injuries. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court highlighted that neither Patalan's testimony nor the medical reports from his treating physiatrist, Leonard Bleicher, or the carrier's orthopedic surgeon, provided sufficient evidence of a recognizable link to a distinctive feature of his employment due to a lack of specific knowledge about his job duties. Consequently, the Board's finding that Patalan did not meet the requirements for an occupational disease was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal LinkRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAsbestos HandlerBack InjuryKnee Injury
References
7
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Arnold Gunness

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for benefits regarding injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness alleged these injuries were causally related to a June 2020 workplace incident. The Board found that he failed to provide competent medical evidence of a causal relationship, noting inconsistencies in his accounts to medical providers and issues with the expert opinions presented. Specifically, a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded as outside his specialty, and a physiatrist's opinion lacked a rational basis regarding the mechanism of injury. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and within the Board's authority to reject the claimant's medical evidence of causation.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryLeft Knee InjuryFoot Fracture
References
7
Case No. 524606
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Wolfe v. Ames Dept. Store, Inc.

Claimant Geraldine Wolfe suffered a work-related accident in April 2002, leading to established injuries to her right shoulder, neck, and upper back. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found her permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers' Compensation Board, after an impartial medical evaluation by physiatrist Paul Salerno, determined it was premature to classify her with a permanent disability. Instead, the Board found a temporary marked partial disability and directed further medical testing. The Board also concluded that claimant was not attached to the labor market as of December 16, 2013, as her employment search efforts had ceased. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence regarding both the disability classification and labor market attachment.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentImpartial Medical SpecialistMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewCervical Spine PainDegenerative ChangesSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. 532849
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Jerzy Patalan

Jerzy Patalan, an asbestos handler, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in June 2018, alleging work-related injuries to his back, neck, knees, wrists, and left foot due to repetitive stress from his employment. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing the injuries were not causally related. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding that neither Patalan's testimony nor the medical reports established a sufficient causal link between his injuries and a distinctive feature of his work duties. The court noted that medical experts, including his treating physiatrist, lacked adequate knowledge of Patalan's specific job duties to support a finding of a causal relationship.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipAsbestos HandlerRepetitive Stress InjuryBack InjuryKnee InjuryLumbar SpineMedical TestimonySubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gordon v. Green Bus Lines, Inc.

Claimant suffered work-related neck, back, and shoulder injuries in June 1996 and ceased working in September 1998 due to severe symptoms. He filed a workers' compensation claim seeking authorization for additional medical treatment. Conflicting medical testimony was presented; his treating physiatrist deemed him totally disabled, while the carrier's physician attributed symptoms to age and prior injuries, denying a causally related ongoing disability from the 1996 accident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the carrier's physician, finding no further causally related disability or compensable lost time since December 1998. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The claimant appealed, requesting remittal for further record development because he was not called as a witness, but the court affirmed, noting this issue was not raised previously and the WCLJ was entitled to resolve medical testimony conflicts based on substantial evidence.

Work-related injuriesNeck injuriesBack injuriesShoulder injuriesMedical treatment authorizationTotal disability claimConflicting medical testimonyCausally related disabilityWorkers' Compensation Law Judge decisionWorkers' Compensation Board affirmation
References
6
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
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