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
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. CV-23-0868
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Germano

Claimant, Victor Germano, sustained a right shoulder injury in 2015 and a right arm injury in 2019. He was previously awarded a 27.50% schedule loss of use (SLU) for the 2015 injury. Following the 2019 injury to his right elbow and biceps, his treating physician opined a 33.33% SLU of the right arm, in addition to the prior injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision allowing the State Insurance Fund to credit prior payments, thereby offsetting the new SLU award. Citing *Matter of Johnson v City of New York*, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, determining that it lacked substantial evidence, as the claimant's physician clearly distinguished the 33.33% SLU from the prior shoulder injury. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Board (WCB)Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryBiceps Tendon InjuryMedical Evaluation ReportCredit for Prior PaymentsAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05259 [231 AD3d 1394]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Matter of Germano v. Dynamic Appliances, Inc.

Victor Germano, the claimant, appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right arm injury sustained in 2019. Germano had a prior SLU award for a 2015 right shoulder injury. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, which granted the State Insurance Fund credit for prior payments, reasoning that Germano failed to show his 33.33% SLU of the right arm was solely attributable to the 2019 injury. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. Citing Matter of Johnson v City of New York, the Court found that Germano's treating physician had clearly distinguished the 2019 biceps injury's 33.33% SLU as separate from, and in addition to, the prior shoulder injury, thereby making an offset inappropriate. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's finding.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryPrior Injury CreditMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Biceps Tendon InjuryShoulder InjuryOffsets
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 530457
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Blair v. Suny Syracuse Hosp.

Jeffrey Blair, who previously received a 25% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a 1995 right elbow injury, sustained a 2017 work-related right shoulder injury. An independent medical examiner found a 45% SLU of his right arm due to the shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board, deducted the prior 25% SLU from the 45% SLU, resulting in a 20% SLU award for the 2017 claim. Blair appealed, contending the 45% SLU was solely attributable to his shoulder injury and should not be reduced. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that impairments to separate parts of a member are encompassed in an overall SLU award for that specified member, making the deduction of a prior SLU award for the same member proper.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseRight Arm InjuryPrior Injury DeductionShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentNew York State
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campito v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying her claim for consequential right shoulder injury benefits. In 2008, the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her neck, left elbow, and upper back. She later sought to amend her claim to include a consequential right shoulder injury, attributing it to overuse caused by her established left arm injury. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no competent medical evidence to support a causal link. An independent medical examiner, James McGowan, attributed the right shoulder issues to adhesive capsulitis related to her diabetic condition, rather than the work accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicting medical opinions falls within the Board’s exclusive authority and their determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryOveruse InjuryMedical EvidenceCausationAdhesive CapsulitisDiabetesConflicting Medical OpinionsSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Orange Heating & Cooling

Claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1994, began experiencing right arm and shoulder pain four years later, which treating physicians diagnosed as reflex sympathy dystrophy (RSD) causally related to the 1994 incident. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the right arm and shoulder pain was not causally related to the earlier accident. On appeal, the Board's determination was supported by expert testimony from Michael Weintraub, a clinical professor of neurology, who attributed the pain to the claimant’s severe diabetes rather than RSD. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that the Board is the arbiter of credibility determinations, especially concerning causation. Thus, the court upheld the denial of workers’ compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationCausationReflex Sympathy DystrophyDiabetesMedical Expert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate AffirmationInjury ClaimCredibilityMedical Evidence
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04221 [185 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Kleban v. Central NY Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Derek Kleban sustained a right shoulder injury in 2013, for which he received a 28.75% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his right arm. In 2017, he suffered a work-related injury to his right elbow, with his physician finding a 20% SLU of the right elbow. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the prior SLU award for the right arm exceeded the current 20% SLU. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) and prior precedents, which limit SLU awards based on the injured body member and degree of impairment, and allow multiple awards only for loss of use of more than one member or parts thereof, but not when a subsequent injury to a part of a previously awarded larger member results in a lower SLU.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' Compensation BenefitsRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryImpairment RatingPrior AwardSubsequent InjuryAppellate DecisionAffirmationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05276 [187 AD3d 1285]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2020

Matter of Covington v. New York City Dept. of Corr.

Claimant Simod Covington, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury to his right elbow while restraining an inmate. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right elbow. However, the WCLJ deducted prior SLU awards totaling 25% for previous right elbow and shoulder injuries, resulting in a 0% SLU for the instant claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that the prior SLU awards were properly credited toward the current claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that SLU awards compensate for loss of earning power from permanent impairments to statutorily-enumerated body members, and that prior awards for the right arm were properly credited regardless of whether they involved the same or separate parts of the arm.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryPrior SLU AwardsCredit for Prior InjuriesLoss of Earning PowerCorrection Officer InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudiciary Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,093 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