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. ADJ1498961
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

DALE ARNOLD vs. RALPH'S AKA KROGER

This case involves an applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits for a right shoulder injury. While the initial award recognized industrial injury to the applicant's left shoulder, right elbow, and right forearm, the defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the right shoulder injury was not work-related. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for the right shoulder injury. They disagreed with the primary treating physician's opinion and found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion more persuasive, ultimately reversing the finding for the right shoulder.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryLeft ShoulderRight ElbowRight ForearmRight ShoulderPrimary Treating Physician
References
0
Case No. SFO 0425862 SFO 0425863
Regular
May 14, 2008

William Bishop vs. IGC POLYCOLD SYSTEMS, ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injury to his right shoulder and seeking a new vocational rehabilitation plan. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of a new vocational plan and the finding of no industrial injury to the right shoulder. However, they reversed the WCJ to award benefits resulting from right shoulder surgery, deeming it a consequence of the compensable left shoulder injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation PlanIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderLeft ShoulderTemporary DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluationCausationNon-Industrial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joseph Saint v. Syracuse Supply Company

Plaintiffs Joseph and Sheila Saint challenged the dismissal of their claims arising from work-related injuries Joseph Saint suffered installing a billboard advertisement. Saint fell from a catwalk, sustaining a dislocated shoulder and herniated discs, after detaching his lanyard. The court addressed whether Saint's work constituted an "alteration" under Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from routine maintenance. It concluded that installing custom-made wooden extensions, which changed the billboard's dimensions, was a significant physical change, thus qualifying as an alteration. Consequently, the Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the claims was reversed, and defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Labor Law § 240 (1) alterationScaffolding safety railConstruction workBillboard advertisement installationElevation-related risksNondelegable dutyAbsolute liabilityProximate causeRoutine maintenance distinctionSignificant physical change
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1992

Fitter v. Gussini Shoes, Inc.

The case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, an employee of Gussini Shoes, Inc., when his manager, Dean Frasco, allegedly kicked a box the plaintiff was leaning on, causing a dislocated shoulder. The plaintiff sued both Gussini and Frasco. Frasco appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment to dismiss the assault cause of action against him, while the plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of claims against Gussini and the negligence claim against Frasco. The cross-appeal was withdrawn. The court affirmed the order denying Frasco's motion for summary judgment on the assault claim, citing a question of fact regarding his intent to harm. It also noted that the Statute of Limitations argument was not raised by Frasco in his initial motion.

Personal InjuryAssaultNegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityIntentional TortWorkers' Compensation ExceptionQuestion of FactStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beard v. State

Claimant Robert Beard was injured in June 2002 while operating a backhoe to demolish a bridge in the Town of Homer, Cortland County, when the bridge suddenly collapsed, causing him to fall 15-20 feet and sustain a dislocated shoulder and torn rotator cuff. He and his wife, derivatively, commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The Court of Claims granted claimants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the case falls squarely within Labor Law § 240 (1) because claimant fell from an elevated work site during demolition, and the collapsed bridge was the "functional equivalent of a scaffold." The court also concluded that the failure to reference a specific rule in the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was not fatal due to the absence of unfair surprise or prejudice to the defendant.

Bridge DemolitionWorkplace AccidentConstruction SafetyElevated Work HazardsShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearLabor Law ViolationPrima Facie ViolationScaffold LawFunctional Equivalent of Scaffold
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montalvo v. J. Petrocelli Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff Rene Montalvo, a sheet metal journeyman, was injured while working on a construction project when a plenum he was holding came loose and caused his unsecured A-frame ladder to shake, resulting in a dislocated shoulder and torn rotator cuff. He sued the general contractor, J. Petrocelli Construction, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, by treating it as a "falling object" case and finding no failure to provide adequate safety devices. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff's injuries stemmed from the defendant's failure to properly secure the ladder, a direct violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and awarded partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on this claim. The appellate court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding a triable issue of fact regarding a violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b)(4)(iv), thus denying the defendant's motion to dismiss this claim.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Ladder SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseFalling Object DoctrinePersonal InjuryWorker SafetyGeneral Contractor Liability
References
13
Case No. ADJ3849140 (RDG 0119253)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

THEMAS TRESLER vs. MOUNTAIN SATELLITE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over workers' compensation jurisdiction regarding a left shoulder injury. The defendant, SCIF, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award of treatment for the shoulder, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision acknowledges that the left shoulder claim may not have been definitively resolved by prior stipulations and requires the WCJ to determine if Labor Code section 5815 applies, potentially leading to a full hearing on the shoulder injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryStipulation with Request for AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedContinuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5909
References
5
Case No. ADJ8361032
Regular
Sep 04, 2019

CAROL WORKMAN vs. ST. THERESA/ST. JOSEPH SCHOOL

This case concerns Carol Workman's claim for benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) due to bilateral shoulder injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) overturned a prior decision and found Workman entitled to SIBTF benefits. This was based on evidence showing her current work-related shoulder injuries, when combined with prior non-industrial and industrial shoulder issues, met the statutory threshold for SIBTF eligibility. The Board found that the cumulative injury to her shoulders resulted in at least 5% permanent disability before adjustments, satisfying the requirement for SIBTF benefits.

SIBTFSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fundwhole person impairmentcumulative traumaacromegalybilateral shouldersrange of motionmotor deficitapportionmentdiminished future earning capacity
References
17
Case No. ADJ3481462 (OAK 0297878)
Regular
Sep 24, 2009

KATHRYN MILLS vs. BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to the applicant's left upper extremity and shoulder, causing temporary disability and need for further medical care. The applicant's treating physician, Dr. Nolan, provided opinions regarding her left shoulder and other body parts, while Dr. Cabayan also provided opinions on the left shoulder and other extremities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award, clarifying that future medical care is consistent with Dr. Cabayan's opinions for the left shoulder and Dr. Nolan's opinions for other body parts. The Board affirmed the award with this specific amendment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryInstructional AssistantLeft Upper ExtremityCompensable ConsequenceTemporary DisabilityFurther Medical CareSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2004

Claim of Senecal v. Allied Bendix

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 1991, leading to surgery in 1992 and retirement in 1995. In 2002, he sought workers' compensation benefits for a consequential right shoulder injury, claiming it resulted from favoring his left shoulder. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established a causally related consequential injury, a Board panel reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, finding substantial evidence that the right shoulder condition, which manifested 10-11 years post-initial injury and 7 years post-retirement, was consistent with natural aging and not causally related to the prior work injury.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryRight Shoulder PainLeft Shoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceDegenerative ChangesSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 778 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