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 Simpson v. Glen Aubrey Fire Co.

A volunteer fireman suffered an acute lumbosacral strain requiring frequent hospital and doctor visits. He sought reimbursement for 290 miles of travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Board approved reimbursement at 20 cents per mile, leading to this appeal. The court examined whether travel expenses for medical treatment are reimbursable under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law and Workers’ Compensation Law. It concluded that access to medical treatment implies the financial means to obtain it, upholding the humanitarian goals of the legislation.

Volunteer FiremanLumbosacral StrainMileage ReimbursementTravel ExpensesMedical TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawVolunteer Firemen's Benefit LawStatutory InterpretationRemedial LawLiberal Construction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bollella v. Schweiker

This case is an action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which denied the plaintiff's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff, a 52-year-old skilled sheet metal mechanic, suffered a lumbosacral injury and a psychiatric disorder. While an administrative law judge (ALJ) found severe impairment, it was concluded the plaintiff could perform semi-skilled sedentary jobs, thus not qualifying for disability benefits. The court, however, reversed the adverse determination, finding insufficient evidence regarding the transferability of the plaintiff's skills to other occupations, especially considering his age. The case was remanded for a rehearing to specifically address the transferability of the plaintiff's skills.

Disability benefitsSocial SecuritySkill transferabilityVocational expertAdministrative law judgeLumbosacral injuryPsychiatric disorderRemandSedentary workSemi-skilled occupations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1999

Claim of Currier v. Manpower, Inc.

Claimant, employed by Manpower, Inc., experienced back, buttocks, and leg pain from repetitive manual labor as a plastics inspector and punch machine operator between April 1995 and May 1996. Diagnosed with chronic lumbosacral strain and sciatica by her chiropractor, she filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that she sustained a causally related occupational disease, a decision appealed by Manpower and its carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the occupational disease determination and that timely notice was given under Workers’ Compensation Law § 45 for occupational diseases, rather than the 30-day requirement for accidental injuries under § 18.

Occupational diseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardRepetitive strain injuryLumbar strainSciaticaTimely noticeAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceChiropractic treatmentEmployment injury
References
5
Case No. 535046
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Gheorghe Petre

Claimant Gheorghe Petre appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. In 1999, Petre sustained work-related injuries, and his claim for benefits was established for various conditions. Following an August 2021 hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) amended the claim to include right lumbosacral neuritis, directed authorization for Gabapentin, and requested missing documentation for medical and travel expenses reimbursement. The Board affirmed this decision and subsequently denied Petre's application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial, finding no abuse of discretion as Petre failed to present new evidence or a material change in condition, and the Board had considered the issues raised in its initial determination.

Workers' Compensation AppealReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewDiscretionary ReviewNew York Appellate DivisionWCLJ DecisionDrug FormularyMedical Expense ReimbursementSpinal InjuriesPsychiatric Conditions
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Schweiker

The plaintiff initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405 to appeal a final decision by the defendant, which had denied his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously concluded in May 1982 that the 62-year-old plaintiff, a longshoreman suffering from chronic bronchitis, emphysema, arthritis, and other severe conditions, was not disabled, deeming his impairments mild and resulting from the aging process. The District Judge found that the ALJ had misapplied 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 by focusing on the plaintiff's ability to perform 'most jobs' rather than assessing whether his impairments significantly limited his ability to perform 'basic work activities,' such as lifting. Medical reports from treating physician Dr. Harold Coppersmith and consulting neurologist Dr. Stephen Gilbert consistently indicated the plaintiff's inability to perform heavy work and, in Dr. Gilbert's opinion, rendered him totally disabled due to conditions like cervical spondylosis, labyrinthine disturbance, and cervical radiculitis. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings within 120 days, instructing the ALJ to properly consider the plaintiff's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience as required by law.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeSevere ImpairmentBasic Work ActivitiesResidual Functional CapacityLongshoremanCervical SpondylosisLabyrinthine DisturbanceVocational Factors
References
1
Showing 1-5 of 5 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