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

McCoy v. Queens Hydraulic Co.

The plaintiff suffered a partial amputation of her right index finger while operating a hydraulic press, leading to an action against Queens Hydraulic Co., Inc., for negligent design and manufacture. Queens Hydraulic then filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Feldware, Inc. Feldware moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's injury was not a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which permits employer liability only for such injuries. The Supreme Court denied Feldware's motion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that a partial loss of an index finger does not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by the statute, thus dismissing the third-party complaint against Feldware.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionAmputationIndex FingerAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. 711 Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's left index finger injury, deemed a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Third-party defendant 3-D Laboratory, Inc. sought summary judgment, arguing the injury was not grave, but this motion was denied by both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. The Appellate Division further granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and defendant/third-party plaintiff 711 Group, Inc., affirming that the plaintiff indeed suffered a grave injury. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision, emphasizing that the "loss of an index finger" constitutes a grave injury, supported by evidence of the plaintiff losing both interphalangeal joints and requiring multiple corrective surgeries.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndex Finger AmputationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsInterphalangeal JointsStatutory InterpretationCorrective SurgeriesMedical Amputation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Deck v. Dorr

This is a dissenting opinion concerning a Workers' Compensation Board's amended decision regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The claimant had already received a 100% SLU award for the loss of four fingers on their right hand and was granted an additional 100% SLU for their right thumb. The dissenting judge, Aarons, J., argues that there was a lack of substantial medical evidence to support the additional award for the thumb, as the claimant's surgeon did not explain how the thumb injury was separate and distinct from the injury to the other four fingers, which resulted from a single incident. The dissent highlights that the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment and Loss of Wage Earning Capacity specify that the loss of all fingers at proximal phalanges equates to 100% loss of use of the hand. Based on this, the dissenting judge would have reversed the portion of the amended decision granting the additional SLU for the thumb, although the final order stated the amended decision was affirmed.

schedule loss of useSLU awardright hand injurythumb amputationfinger amputationworkers' compensation boarddissenting opinionmedical evidencepermanent impairmentwage earning capacity
References
3
Case No. ADJ10594852; ADJ10882589; ADJ10882630
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

AURELIO RAMIREZ vs. PARKHOUSE TIRES, INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration in the case of Aurelio Ramirez vs. Parkhouse Tires, Inc. and Travelers Property Casualty of America. The WCAB rescinded the original Findings, Order and Award (F&A) from January 14, 2021, and substituted new findings regarding applicant's permanent disabilities for multiple injuries. Specifically, it found a 38% permanent disability for a right index finger injury (ADJ10594852) and a 15% permanent disability for a back injury (ADJ10882630). The Board also determined that the defendant was not entitled to a credit for temporary disability overpayment and deferred the issue of attorney's fees. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Order AwardTire TechnicianRight Index Finger InjuryBack InjuryHernia InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
32
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04413 [162 AD3d 1286]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Tobin v. Finger Lakes DDSO

Kristi M. Tobin, a support aide, sustained injuries in April 2012 after being assaulted by a client, leading to a workers' compensation claim established for various injuries including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD)/complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of her right face. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded schedule loss of use for vision loss and facial disfigurement. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, classifying claimant's RSD/CRPS and ptosis as a nonschedule permanent partial disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rescinding the prior awards, and remitting the case for further record development regarding loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence supported the nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification due to the claimant's ongoing chronic pain and worsening ptosis, consistent with not receiving both schedule loss of use and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards for the same work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseReflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Facial DisfigurementWage-Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ9607300
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

Danielle Manning vs. Conifer Health Solutions

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Danielle Manning's claim. While affirming the original decision, they amended its findings of fact. The Board specifically found that Manning sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to psych/stress. The issue of causation for alleged injuries to her right index finger and headaches remains deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportGrant ReconsiderationAmend DecisionAffirm DecisionAccounts Receivable CollectorPsych/Stress InjuryRight Index Finger InjuryHeadaches
References
0
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

Blackburn v. Wysong & Miles Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe hand injuries while operating a steel press brake machine manufactured by Wysong and Miles Company. The plaintiff's employer, Stein Industries, Inc., was named as a defendant, and Wysong commenced a third-party action against Stein seeking contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed Wysong's third-party complaint against Stein, determining that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 for employer liability. Wysong appealed this dismissal and the denial of its motion for leave to renew. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the partial loss of an index finger and parts of multiple fingers did not constitute a 'grave injury' as defined by the statute, despite the serious nature of the injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationPartial Finger AmputationIndustrial Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Cocom-Tambriz v. Surita Demolition Contracting, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained a grave injury after a backhoe crushed his hand, requiring finger amputation and repositioning. The plaintiff initiated an action against B & P Real Estate, LLC, and Centaur Management, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer (the third-party defendant) seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude the third-party action. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the appellate court concluding that the plaintiff's injury—the loss of an index finger—constituted a grave injury. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppealFinger AmputationBackhoe InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 16,006 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