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. ADJ12221657; ADJ13326997
Regular
May 27, 2025

MARIA ALVAREZ vs. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Maria Alvarez, an Elementary Campus Supervisor, sustained injuries to her left hand and wrist on October 15, 2018, and allegedly bilateral hands, right wrist, and right thumb due to cumulative trauma from September 1, 2005, through August 1, 2019. The defendant, Pomona Unified School District, filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the WCJ's finding of Occupational Code No. 322. The Appeals Board granted the petition solely to amend the February 20, 2025 Joint Findings, Order, and Award to defer the issue of whether applicant has reached maximum medical improvement in both cases, while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decision. The WCJ's determination of Occupational Group Number 322 was upheld, explaining its consistency with the applicant's food service duties, contrasting it with other clerical and professional occupations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Maximum Medical ImprovementOccupational Group NumberDalen v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Schedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesAMA GuidesSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
4
Case No. G0061596
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

THOME, JASON v. BENCHMARK MAIN TRANSIT ASSOCIATES

Jose Sanchez, a bus maintainer, sustained an occupational disease of his right hand and wrist in 2012 due to repetitive motions at work for the NYC Transit Authority. His claim was initially established in 2013, with a 15% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the right hand. In 2019, the claimant sought to reopen the case, asserting a consequential right shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a 7.5% SLU of the right shoulder, attributing 50% to the established claim and 50% to an earlier, unstabilized shoulder condition. The WCLJ also denied the Special Funds Conservation Committee's application for discharge under WCL § 15(8)(d). The Board Panel affirmed the WCLJ's decision, finding the evidence supported the apportionment and that the employer's failure to serve a notice of controversy under WCL § 25(2)(b) precluded discharge of the Special Funds.

Occupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseApportionmentSpecial FundsNotice of ControversyRight Hand InjuryRight Wrist InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryBus MaintainerRepetitive Motion
References
6
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. ADJ7902052
Regular
Mar 04, 2014

SHARON TEDFORD vs. SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a decision that found injury to her right shoulder, elbow, and hand, resulting in 34% permanent disability. The applicant contended the permanent disability rating was too low and that injury to her right wrist and left shoulder was improperly denied. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report to correct a rating calculation error, increasing the permanent disability to 35%. The Board affirmed the denial of injury to the right wrist and left shoulder, finding substantial evidence supported the original determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability RatingIndustrial InjuryAOE/COERight Shoulder InjuryRight Wrist InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryPermanent Disability Schedule
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Santiago v. The NY Operators

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her right hand and subsequently her left wrist, receiving workers' compensation benefits from October 2008 to December 2013. Payments were suspended in December 2013 based on the employer's medical expert opinion that claimant reached maximum medical improvement. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a 17.5% loss of use of her right hand and 7.5% loss of use of her left hand. The Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, restoring the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record, noting that claimant had not been provided an opportunity to present evidence regarding schedule loss of use percentages. Claimant appealed the Board’s failure to determine awards held in abeyance and paid at a tentative rate. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board’s decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, allowing the claimant to appeal any issues upon a final Board decision.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementInterlocutory AppealAppellate ProcedureMedical Expert OpinionBoard Decision RescindedTrial CalendarFurther Development of RecordTentative Rate
References
4
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
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 1984

Carter v. Mobil Chemical Co.

Claimant, a material handler, sustained a compensable right hand injury in May 1978, resulting in an occupational award for tendonitis. The case was initially closed but reopened in 1981 due to persistent disability. A referee initially found no causal relationship, attributing the disability to a pre-existing congenital wrist laxity. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this finding, concluding that both the claimant's right elbow and wrist disabilities were causally related to the 1978 incident, based on testimonies from Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Shera. The self-insured employer appealed this determination, questioning the sufficiency of the medical evidence provided. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing its prerogative to resolve conflicting medical opinions when supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTendonitisWrist InjuryElbow InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceReopening CaseCongenital LaxityMedical Opinion Conflict
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00706 [235 AD3d 1052]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2025

Matter of Capers v. Jacobi Med. Ctr.

The claimant, a registered nurse, suffered work-related injuries to her right hand, wrist, and third finger in August 2020. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was established, and her treating physician reported maximum medical improvement with a 17.5% schedule loss of use of the right wrist. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) proposed an award, but the employer objected, seeking reimbursement for wages paid during the period of disability. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's decision, finding the employer's reimbursement claim timely. Upon reconsideration, the Board issued an amended decision affirming the employer's entitlement to reimbursement for wages paid prior to the final schedule loss of use award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, concluding that the employer's reimbursement request was timely filed before the schedule loss of use award was finalized.

workers compensationschedule loss of useSLUreimbursementadvance paymentsperiod of disabilitymaximum medical improvementMMIemployer objectiontimeliness of claim
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,904 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