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 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

Claim of Pedro v. Liberty Lines Express

The claimant, a mechanic, sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his right thumb. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined this constituted a 50% schedule loss of the use of his right hand and awarded benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the injury was exclusively to the thumb and that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not explicitly allow for a single digit loss to be compensated as a partial loss of hand function. The court adopted a flexible approach, asserting that schedule allowances should not be deemed exclusive when treating a smaller member's loss as a percentage of a larger member's loss. Based on the testimony of the Board’s principal medical examiner, who stated the thumb injury diminished the prehensile function of the entire right hand, the court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers’ CompensationSchedule LossThumb AmputationRight Hand InjuryPrehensile FunctionAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyInjury CompensationStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. ADJ4111589, ADJ2809505, ADJ4372783, ADJ1391390, ADJ2081394, ADJ8992669
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

GUILLERMO CORNEJO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

This case involves a worker who sustained multiple admitted industrial injuries to his right foot, back, right thigh, psyche, right lower extremity, and hands. The applicant alleged a subsequent left shoulder condition arose as a compensable consequence of these prior injuries due to a fall. Initially, an administrative law judge found the fall was not industrial, ruling the applicant merely tripped. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that medical evidence established the applicant's admitted industrial injuries caused weakness in his right lower extremity and balance issues, which contributed to his fall. Therefore, the Board reversed the prior ruling, determining the left shoulder condition was a compensable consequence of the original industrial injuries.

compensable consequenceadmitted industrial injuriesleft shoulder conditionright footright lower extremitybalanceweaknessfallL4-L5 fusionradiculopathy
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Daniels v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Mary Daniels, a train conductor, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging work-related injuries to her right shoulder, right elbow, and right hand from a March 4, 2022 incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence for injuries including her neck, but ultimately established the claim only for the shoulder and elbow, finding no causally-related neck injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that while treating physicians opined on a causally-related neck injury, the claimant herself did not report neck pain in her initial claim or job injury report and denied it during the hearing, thereby undermining the factual basis for the medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationCausationNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewTreating PhysicianOrthopedic Surgeon
References
5
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. ADJ3304517 (VNO 0558755), ADJ8042777
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

STEPHEN McLAUGHLIN vs. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior award that found the applicant's right shoulder injury to be a separate industrial injury. The Board determined the shoulder injury was a "compensable consequence" of the applicant's original bilateral hand and wrist injury, occurring while receiving treatment. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an additional 104 weeks of temporary disability beyond the statutory limit for the initial injury. The applicant takes nothing by way of his claim for the right shoulder injury as a separate event.

Compensable consequenceCumulative traumaBilateral handsCarpal tunnel syndromeRight shoulder injuryTemporary disabilitySection 4656(c)(1)Petition for reconsiderationFindings and awardWorkers' compensation administrative law judge
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Feliciano v. New York City Health & Hospitals Co.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the left hand claim time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28 and established August 28, 2006, as the disability date for the right hand. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the right hand's disability date but, on its own motion, set December 2003 as the disability date for the left hand, thereby confirming the left hand claim was untimely. The claimant appealed, arguing against two disability dates for a single claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported treating the hand injuries as discrete occupational diseases with separate disablement dates and upheld the time-bar for the left hand claim.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTime-barred ClaimDate of DisablementBilateral InjuriesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial ReviewStatute of Limitations
References
6
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

Claim of Steinhauser v. Ontario County

A motor vehicle representative experienced pain in her right elbow and hand after being required to work in an abnormal position at a new work station. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified her condition as an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified it as an accidental injury, citing September 28, 2000, as the accident date. The employer appealed, contesting the change in theory and denying an accident occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, drawing parallels to a previous case, Matter of Farcasin v PDG, Inc., involving similar circumstances of injuries from an ergonomically incorrect work station.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseErgonomicsWork Station InjuryElbow InjuryHand InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausation
References
1
Case No. POM 0244323, POM 0260214
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

BERTHA KOCIAN vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMER JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the date of injury for applicant's bilateral hand and right knee cumulative trauma claim, changing it to 1980-March 22, 2001. The Board affirmed the original decision denying apportionment of permanent disability to pre-existing conditions, finding defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence to support their claim. Applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral hands and right knee, resulting in 67 percent permanent disability.

KocianClougherty PackingFarmer JohnPOM 0244323POM 0260214Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardssausage stufferindustrial injuryright knee
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 16,030 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