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

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beadleston v. American Tissue Corp.

Plaintiff, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured on a loading dock of defendant American Tissue Corporation when a waterlogged bale of wastepaper fell on him. He sued for negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations. Following a jury verdict finding defendants 75% negligent and awarding damages, both parties cross-appealed various aspects, including jury instructions on res ipsa loquitur and comparative negligence, and the apportionment of liability. The court affirmed the application of assumption of risk but found errors in certain damage awards. Consequently, the judgment was modified, reversing some awards and ordering a new trial on past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses, conditional on the parties stipulating to adjusted amounts.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor Law § 200Res Ipsa LoquiturAssumption of RiskComparative NegligenceDamagesFuture Medical ExpensesLost WagesPain and Suffering
References
37
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

Traver v. Officine Meccaniche Toshci SpA

Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting six causes of action, including negligence, negligent design, negligent manufacture, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability, seeking $60,000,000 in damages after being injured by a Tissue Slitter Rewinder manufactured by the Defendant. The incident occurred while Plaintiff was an employee of American Tissue Corporation in Greenwich, New York. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery to establish jurisdiction. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, finding that the balance of private and public factors did not strongly favor disturbing the Plaintiff's choice of forum.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensDiversity JurisdictionLong-Arm StatuteTortious ActSubstantial RevenueInterstate CommerceInternational CommerceNegligence ClaimsProduct Liability Claims
References
29
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. 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. ADJ2023774
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHRISTOPHER CORBO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns whether an applicant's severe crush injury to his left foot, involving a partial avulsion of the heel pad, constitutes an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(C) for purposes of extending temporary disability indemnity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that the injury did not meet the definition of amputation. The Board clarified that "amputation" requires severance or removal of a limb or appendage, not merely a severe laceration or partial separation of tissue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4656(c)(3)(C)AmputationTemporary DisabilityCrush InjuryAvulsionHeel PadCalcaneusCruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 26 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