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. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. CV-23-0298
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Gayle Leonard

Gayle Leonard, an alteration seamstress, filed a workers' compensation claim after contracting COVID-19 at work. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing it was not a causally-related injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim for occupationally contracted COVID-19. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that Leonard demonstrated specific exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace through interactions with a coworker who tested positive. The Board also concluded that Leonard was entitled to the presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21, which the carrier failed to rebut, having waived the right to an independent medical exam. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that contracting COVID-19 in the workplace can qualify as an unusual hazard and is compensable. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of a work-related injury due to specific exposure and upheld the application of the statutory presumption, concluding that a causal connection between the injury and employment was established.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryWorkplace ExposurePresumption of CompensabilityCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAlteration SeamstressOccupational Illness
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2005

Claim of Haas v. Gross Electric

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from July 13, 2005, which denied his claim for benefits, finding no causally related injury. The claim stemmed from a December 17, 2002, work-related motor vehicle accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claim established based on medical expert opinions linking a back injury to the accident. However, this determination was rescinded after the carrier submitted newly discovered evidence—medical records from claimant’s primary care physician, Thomas Coppens—revealing prior back injuries and that the current problems began while wrapping presents on December 24, 2002. Subsequent medical opinions became ambivalent or changed, leading to the disallowance of the claim by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision later affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Motor Vehicle AccidentBack InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert OpinionPrior Medical HistoryNewly Discovered EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewClaim DisallowanceAppellate AffirmationBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. 532849
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Jerzy Patalan

Jerzy Patalan, an asbestos handler, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in June 2018, alleging work-related injuries to his back, neck, knees, wrists, and left foot due to repetitive stress from his employment. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing the injuries were not causally related. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding that neither Patalan's testimony nor the medical reports established a sufficient causal link between his injuries and a distinctive feature of his work duties. The court noted that medical experts, including his treating physiatrist, lacked adequate knowledge of Patalan's specific job duties to support a finding of a causal relationship.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipAsbestos HandlerRepetitive Stress InjuryBack InjuryKnee InjuryLumbar SpineMedical TestimonySubstantial Evidence
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03580 [150 AD3d 1349]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Claim of Richards v. Massena Central Schools

Mary Ann Richards, a cleaner, sustained neck injuries in March 2010 while working for Massena Central Schools, leading to an established workers' compensation claim and cervical surgery. In June 2013, she sought to amend her claim to include consequential neurological injuries, specifically scapulothoracic crepitation and mandibular dysesthesia. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this amendment, concluding that Richards failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between her established work injury and the alleged consequential conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. Multiple medical professionals, including orthopedic surgeons and neurologists, provided opinions that either could not determine the etiology of Richards' symptoms or found no objective evidence linking them to her work injury or subsequent surgery.

Workers' CompensationNeurological InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewScapulothoracic CrepitationMandibular DysesthesiaCervical SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationBurden of Proof
References
5
Case No. 534023
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Sanchez

Brenda Sanchez, a station agent, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her claim for benefits for repetitive stress injuries to her neck, back, left shoulder, left hip, and left hand. Initially, the claim was disallowed as time-barred, but the Appellate Division remitted the matter. Upon remittal, the WCB found that the injuries were not causally related to her employment, discrediting the opinion of her treating physician, Stephen Roberts. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Sanchez failed to establish a recognizable link between her injuries and a distinctive feature of her occupation, specifically the lifting of heavy coin bags, due to insufficient evidence regarding frequency and a clear causal mechanism.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive stress injuryCausationMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceStation agentWorkers' compensation benefitsTime-barred claimBoard decisionAppellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2003

Sowa v. S.J.N.H. Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a hairdresser working at a nursing home, suffered head injuries when a window fell. She initiated a personal injury action, and the Supreme Court granted her leave to amend her complaint to include Labor Law claims directly against the third-party defendants, while denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found the defendants lacked notice of any dangerous condition and dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim. Additionally, it ruled that the plaintiff's Labor Law claims against the third-party defendants were time-barred and legally insufficient because she was not considered "employed" under the Labor Law and failed to cite specific safety violations. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityLabor LawSummary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturRelation-Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsIndependent ContractorsAmended ComplaintWindow Accident
References
13
Case No. ADJ9888475 ADJ10049451
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

CHRISTOPHER PINEGAR vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case involves a Petition to Reopen filed by the applicant alleging new and further disability. The Appeals Board found that the claim related to a specific injury from May 10, 2012, is time-barred as the petition was filed over five years after the injury date. However, the Board agreed with the trial judge that the record needs further development regarding the applicant's cumulative trauma claim. Therefore, the decision was rescinded, the specific injury claim was dismissed as untimely, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the cumulative trauma claim.

Petition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityStipulated AwardSpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaStatute of LimitationsJurisdictionLabor Code Section 5804Labor Code Section 5410Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
9
Case No. 535832
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Tunin Romero

Claimant Tunin Romero, a carpenter, sustained injuries while working in June 2021. The employer, Capital Concrete, and its carrier, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, failed to file a First Report of Injury or a notice of controversy. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and found the carrier liable. The carrier's application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) was denied due to non-compliance with procedural rules, specifically 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), for failing to interpose a specific objection to the WCLJ's ruling. The Board also affirmed the WCLJ's denial of further development of the record regarding the employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsClaim EstablishmentBoard Review ApplicationProcedural ComplianceObjection InterposedWaiver of DefenseEmployer-Employee RelationshipAbuse of DiscretionAdministrative ReviewAppellate Practice
References
6
Case No. 533139
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Scot A Muse

Claimant Scot A. Muse suffered work-related injuries in 2018, leading to an established workers' compensation claim later amended to include a back injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement and apportioned the claim 40% to the 2018 accident and 60% to a 1997 work-related accident. Claimant's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for failure to provide a complete response to question 13 on the RB-89 form, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1). Specifically, claimant neglected to identify certain medical reports and a deposition transcript he relied on in his appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application due to the claimant's non-compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewProcedural ComplianceMaximum Medical ImprovementApportionmentAppellate DivisionForm RB-89Hearing Date
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 24,681 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