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

Panzarella v. Multiple Parking Services, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who suffered injuries from a fall on an icy parking lot. The defendant appealed the judgment, arguing a lack of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and insufficient time to remedy it. However, the evidence showed the ice was visible and present for an adequate period for the defendant's employees to discover and rectify it, leading the court to conclude the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court also correctly refused a jury charge on implied assumption of risk as the plaintiff was unaware of the ice. Additionally, the jury's award of $160,000 for future pain and suffering was deemed reasonable given the plaintiff's fractured distal radius, two surgeries, permanent grip and pinch deficiencies, scars, atrophy, and wrist deformity.

Icy ConditionParking Lot FallPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeJury VerdictAssumption of RiskPersonal Injury DamagesFractured WristSurgical ProceduresPermanent Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2005

Claim of Cucci v. Rexer's Tang Soo Do Karate Academy

Claimant sustained a severe neck laceration in December 2001 while at work, resulting in a significant scar. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied an award for facial disfigurement, stating the scar was below the jaw. The Workers’ Compensation Board panel modified this, granting a $10,000 award, finding the scar fell within the compensable region under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (t) (2). The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board failed to address the impact of the disfigurement on claimant's present or future earning capacity, a statutory requirement for such an award. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, citing the absence of findings or inferences regarding impaired earning capacity.

Facial DisfigurementSerious DisfigurementEarning CapacityWorkers' Compensation Law § 15Scar InjuryAppellate ReviewRemittalStatutory InterpretationCompensable InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ12305682
Regular
Apr 14, 2023

DAVID REED vs. CSR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves CSR Management Services and their insurer seeking reconsideration of a $71\%$ permanent disability award for David Reed. The defendants argued that the qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Brophy, did not sufficiently explain the applicant's scarring impairment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding Dr. Brophy adequately explained the scarring impairments as Class 1 under the AMA Guides. The Board noted that defendants could have sought further clarification from the evaluator.

CSR Management ServicesState Compensation Insurance FundADJ12305682Petition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings of FactAward and Orderconstruction laborerindustrial injuryupper extremitiesback
References
2
Case No. 13 NY3d 747
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McKinnon

The case concerns the appeal of a defendant's conviction for first-degree assault, among other crimes, in New York. The core legal issue revolves around whether bite marks inflicted by the defendant on the victim's inner forearm constituted "serious disfigurement" under Penal Law § 120.10 (2). The court, while acknowledging a definition for "disfigurement," found the evidence—consisting of two moderate-sized scars—insufficient to establish serious disfigurement. The court emphasized that the mere existence of scars in that location, without unusually disturbing characteristics, would not make the victim's appearance distressing or objectionable to a reasonable person. Consequently, the first-degree assault conviction and a related second-degree assault count were reversed and dismissed, with the case remitted for further proceedings on a remaining second-degree assault charge.

Criminal LawAssaultFirst Degree AssaultSerious DisfigurementPenal LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsBite MarksPhysical Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1996

Chambers v. City of Ogdensburg

The State Insurance Fund appealed an order from St. Lawrence County Supreme Court denying its request for a full lien on the settlement proceeds received by Timothy J. Cooke, a 12-year-old paperboy. Cooke had received $14,000 from the Fund for permanent facial scars sustained after being struck by a police car, and subsequently settled a third-party personal injury action. The Supreme Court ruled, based on Dietrich v Kemper Ins. Co., that the settlement funds for facial scars constituted compensation for basic economic loss and were therefore exempt from a Workers’ Compensation Law lien. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Fund's appeal timely and agreeing that the compensation for facial disfigurement was equivalent to basic economic loss. Additionally, the court rejected the Fund's argument for a partial lien against amounts exceeding a statutory no-fault cap, determining the lump-sum payment remained within monthly limits when distributed over 36 months.

Workers' CompensationLien EnforcementThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryFacial ScarsNo-Fault BenefitsBasic Economic LossStatutory InterpretationAppellate AffirmationState Insurance Fund
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Graham

This case addresses whether plaintiff Cedric Fleming's facial injuries, specifically scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid, constitute a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, qualifying as a "grave injury." Fleming, an employee of Pinstripes Garment Services, LLC, sustained these injuries in a collision with a school bus. He sued Evergreen Bus Service, Inc., and its driver, who then initiated a third-party action against Pinstripes for indemnity/contribution, claiming Fleming's injuries were "grave." Supreme Court denied Pinstripes' summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division affirmed, finding factual questions. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, establishing a standard for "severe facial disfigurement" which requires the injury to greatly alter the face's appearance and be regarded as "abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly" by a reasonable person. Applying this standard, the Court found that Fleming's injuries, despite numerous scars and some permanency, did not meet the "severe" disfigurement threshold, thereby granting Pinstripes' motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementPermanent InjurySevere InjuryThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ9799720
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

HOWARD GARNER vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a transcription error, amending the findings to reflect an injury to the applicant's left "little" toe instead of the left "middle" toe. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied, as the Board found no evidence to support claims of injury to his hand, hip, or a deformed left little toe, and the medical examiner did examine the relevant body part. The decision affirmed the findings of no permanent disability or need for further treatment for the left little toe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerTranscription ErrorLeft Little ToePermanent Partial DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
0
Case No. ADJ6704425
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

MANUEL MENDOZA vs. RACKLEY COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision awarding permanent disability benefits to Manuel Mendoza. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found that the primary treating physician's opinion constituted substantial evidence, even if it differed from other medical opinions. The judge's decision to follow the treating physician's rating, which included consideration of a surgical scar and pain, was upheld. The Board noted that a single physician's relevant and considered opinion can be substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedSubstantial EvidencePhysician OpinionAMA GuidesGuzman DecisionPermanent DisabilityPrimary Treating PhysicianPQMESurgical Scar
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1974

Stevens v. County of Nassau

Mozella Stevens, a food service worker for the County of Nassau, suffered a fractured right wrist after a fall on hospital grounds. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice action against her employer, the county, alleging permanent deformity due to the treatment received at the Nassau County Medical Center. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the order, determining that the plaintiff's action was not barred by the Workmen’s Compensation Law because the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.

Medical MalpracticeSummary Judgment MotionOrder AffirmedWorkers' Compensation LawCourse of EmploymentFractured WristOrthopedic InjuryPlaintiff-Employer RelationshipJudicial AppealPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ12075922
Regular
Sep 12, 2025

DANIEL STRAMBI vs. CITY OF FOSTER CITY, THE CITIES GROUP

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings of Fact and Award which found applicant sustained injury to multiple body parts resulting in 69% permanent disability and that defendant unreasonably delayed payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity, leading to penalties. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ's determination that the AME's findings on permanent disability, including the interpretation of AMA Guides for varus deformity and the adding of knee disabilities, constituted substantial evidence. The Board also upheld the imposition of penalties for the defendant's unreasonable delays in paying both temporary and permanent disability benefits.

StrambiCity of Foster CityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardpermanent disabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Peter MandellLabor Code section 5814penaltiesunreasonable delay
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 21 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