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. ADJ1498961
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

DALE ARNOLD vs. RALPH'S AKA KROGER

This case involves an applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a right shoulder injury. While the initial award recognized industrial injury to the applicant's left shoulder, right elbow, and right forearm, the defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the right shoulder injury was not work-related. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for the right shoulder injury. They disagreed with the primary treating physician's opinion and found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion more persuasive, ultimately reversing the finding for the right shoulder.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryLeft ShoulderRight ElbowRight ForearmRight ShoulderPrimary Treating Physician
References
0
Case No. 534955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Victor Martinez, a construction worker, was injured on November 11, 2020, when his right hand was caught between a cantilever pin and a concrete post. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, including injuries to his neck and back, in addition to his right upper extremity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim only for injuries to his right forearm and wrist, disallowing the neck and back claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this determination, amending the claim to include the neck and back injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the causal relationship of the neck and back injuries. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility and its factual findings.

Construction InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausality DeterminationNeck and Back InjuriesSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion CredibilityAppellate ReviewWork AccidentBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedist Testimony
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2000

Claim of Martin v. Levest Electric Corp.

The claimant, having suffered work-related injuries, pursued both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party personal injury action, which was subsequently settled. A contention arose concerning the workers' compensation carrier's entitlement to offset future benefits against the net settlement proceeds, as outlined in Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the carrier had correctly preserved its right to this offset. On appeal, the claimant argued that the carrier had consented to the settlement, thereby waiving its offset right, and that a court possessed the authority to waive such a right. The appellate court upheld the Board's finding, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of carrier consent to the settlement, and reaffirmed that a court cannot override a carrier's explicit reservation of its offset rights.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsCarrier ConsentFuture BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionBoard RulingReservation of Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2005

Claim of Jones v. New York State Department of Correction

The claimant, a bus driver for the New York City Department of Correction, sustained work-related injuries to her right shoulder and back in September 1998. After surgery in 1999, she sought treatment in 2001 for left shoulder pain, alleging it was a consequential injury from favoring her right shoulder. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related consequential injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to make its own factual findings and resolve conflicting medical evidence. The Board found the self-insured employer’s medical consultant more credible than the claimant’s physician, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionCausal RelationshipConsequential InjuryCredibility of WitnessesConflicting Medical EvidenceShoulder InjuriesBus DriverNew York City Department of CorrectionAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ488924 (SDO 0329999), ADJ226519 (SDO 0302236), ADJ2353553 (SDO 0250184), ADJ4021935 (SDO 0269434)
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

Craig Stevens vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous order denying benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). Applicant Craig Stevens sought SIBTF benefits for a claimed subsequent cumulative trauma injury to his neck ending April 2, 2009, with a compensable consequence injury to his right shoulder and low back. The WCAB found the medical evidence regarding the causation, date of injury, and permanent disability ratings for the alleged subsequent injuries, as well as prior injuries, to be insufficient and inconsistent. The case was returned to the trial level for further development of the record, including obtaining new medical opinions to clarify the various injuries and establish SIBTF eligibility thresholds.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTF eligibilitycumulative trauma injurycompensable consequence injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentmedical evidencecausationfurther development of the recordLabor Code section 4751
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Lora Abbott Seabury, an employee at a correctional facility, filed a complaint in 2010 alleging sexual harassment by male coworkers, creating a hostile work environment. An Administrative Law Judge found in her favor, recommending substantial economic and non-economic damages. The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the economic damages but adopted the recommendations. The correctional facility (petitioner) sought to annul the determination, while Seabury sought modification and confirmation. The Court upheld the finding of a hostile work environment due to gender-based harassment, crediting Seabury's testimony about daily harassment, supervisors' inaction, and gender-biased statements. The Court also affirmed the $300,000 award for noneconomic injuries, finding it supported by evidence of severe psychological trauma, including PTSD and major depressive disorder. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Seabury's award should not be offset by workers' compensation benefits and that pension losses must be compensated, remitting the matter to determine those damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewDamages AwardEconomic DamagesNoneconomic DamagesWorkers' Compensation OffsetPension BenefitsDuty to Mitigate
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2003

Tempio v. City of Buffalo

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the City of Buffalo Fire Department, initiated a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a and respondeat superior. The plaintiff claimed injuries due to a fellow employee's negligence in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that the plaintiff falls within the class of persons covered by section 205-a, as it applies to 'any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured... while in the discharge or performance... of any duty.' Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude this action, citing that section 205-a grants recovery rights 'in addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law.'

Personal InjuryMunicipal LawRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationVehicle and Traffic LawEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFire Department
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 15,948 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