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

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Canfield v. Thompson & Johnson Equipment

The claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning benefits for a work-related hand injury. Following the amputation of two fingers, the claimant sought an award based on a 70% schedule loss of use of the right hand, arguing for an additional 'loading' percentage as described in the Board's medical guidelines. The Board, however, determined that 'loading' was already incorporated into the percentage losses specified for multiple digit amputations in their guidelines. Consequently, the claimant's award was modified to reflect a 35% schedule loss of use. The appellate court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding a rational basis for its interpretation of the medical guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAmputationMedical GuidelinesLoading CalculationRight Hand InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWork-related AccidentJudicial Affirmation
References
1
Case No. AHM 0118031; AHM 0118045; AHM 0118046; AHM 0118048; AHM 0118050; AHM 0118332
Regular
May 13, 2008

NHIEN TRAN vs. CARGOTEC, INC., EMPLOYERS SELFINSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an award of $\$ 2,217.50$ for medical treatment, finding the original decision supported by substantial evidence including an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion and fee schedule limitations. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's amended petition for reconsideration as untimely filed, noting it was received after the statutory deadline. Furthermore, a supplemental amended petition was dismissed as unauthorized under Appeals Board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings & Award & OrderAdministrative Law JudgeACOEM GuidelinesCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code section 4604.5
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kondylis v. Alatis Interiors Co.

Claimant, a painter, was injured in June 2008 and his workers' compensation claim was established for back and left knee injuries. After his death from unrelated causes in July 2009, his attorney sought to amend the claim for neck and right shoulder injuries, submitting a report from treating physician Emmanuel Lambrakis, who found a 60% schedule loss of use for the right shoulder and left knee. A WCLJ granted a posthumous schedule loss of use award, but the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded it and later reversed the WCLJ's reinstatement, finding Lambrakis's report lacked specific guidelines or clinical findings. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the medical evidence failed to demonstrate maximum medical improvement, noting continuing pain and need for treatment, and that Lambrakis's report was conclusory.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPosthumous AwardTreating Physician ReportMedical Evidence SufficiencyMaximum Medical ImprovementAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionCross-Examination WaiverCPLR Procedure
References
12
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Claim of Schick v. Crucible Specialty Metals

The Workers’ Compensation Board's amended decision, filed on September 1, 1992, determined that the claimant suffered an accidental injury in the course of employment. This injury was attributed to excessive emotional and mental stress resulting from long work hours and shifting schedules. The appellate court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion. The court emphasized that a determination of accidental injury is valid even if other employees under similar conditions were not similarly affected. Consequently, the Board's decision to award workers' compensation benefits was affirmed.

Emotional StressMental StressAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment InjuryWork-related StressAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceAffirmation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2002

Claim of Davis v. GA Braun, Inc.

On May 7, 1993, the claimant sustained a lower back injury, and on March 5, 1996, a right shoulder injury while working for the employer. Both workers’ compensation claims were combined for purposes of determining apportionment and degree of disability. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the claimant failed to adequately develop the record regarding the back injury and awarded a 30% schedule loss of use for the right arm. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, ruling that further development of the record concerning the back injury's permanency was unwarranted, despite a later WCLJ ruling that allowed it. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s amended decision, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in denying further record development given the claimant's ample opportunity to present medical evidence previously.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewRecord DevelopmentBack InjuryShoulder InjurySchedule Loss of UsePermanencyDisabilityMedical EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Lithuanian Workers' Literature Society

The Lithuanian Workers’ Literature Society appealed a Kings Special Term order denying its motion to amend its certificate of incorporation. The proposed amendment sought to broaden membership qualifications from adhering to the Socialist Party to not opposing "Marxian principles". The court scrutinized whether "Marxian principles" endorse the overthrow of government by force, which is criminal under state Penal Law. Citing Karl Marx's historical support for forceful revolutions (e.g., Paris Commune), the court concluded that these principles were broad enough to justify illegal propaganda. Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed amendment would allow retention of members advocating "direct action" by force, contrary to the Socialist Party's recently amended platform promoting constitutional methods. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the amendment, refusing to sanction an organization whose principles could potentially endorse unlawful means.

Corporate AmendmentSocialismMarxian PrinciplesFreedom of AssociationPolitical PropagandaConstitutional LawPenal LawAppellate ReviewMembership Corporations LawDirect Action
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,029 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