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. ADJ106846 (VNO 0536976)
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

SARKIS INDOIAN (Dec'd), BETTY INDOIAN (Widow) vs. ON THE WHEELS, SUCCESS DELIVERY, NOUNE SOMOKRANIAN, VIGEN GABOUCHIAN, ROUZZANA ARCHAKOUNI, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the decedent sustained a fatal cumulative trauma injury due to his employment with Success Delivery. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, lacked sufficient factual basis and an accurate employment history to establish a causal link. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record to determine if the employment with Success Delivery contributed to the injury.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsEmployment relationshipSubstantial shareholderPartnershipUninsured employerMedical evidenceCausationApportionment
References
4
Case No. ADJ1916556 (RIV 0038645) ADJ2708670 (ANA 0358650)
Regular
Nov 15, 2013

GHEORGHE TOMA vs. BASIC ELECTRIC, INC.; SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) successfully petitioned for reconsideration, overturning a previous finding that the applicant was eligible for SIBTF benefits. The Board determined that the applicant did not qualify because the WCJ improperly considered disability arising from the natural progression of a prior injury after a subsequent injury. SIBTF liability is based solely on the disability level at the time of the subsequent injury, which was 32% in this case. Consequently, the applicant was found not qualified for SIBTF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751permanent disabilitycumulative traumaspecific injuryPetition to ReopenAgreed Medical Examinerapportionmentnew and further disabilityHaendiges v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Ozone Park Lumber

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the third-party complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute "grave injuries" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the third-party plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuriesAppellate CourtReversalMotion GrantedDismissalDamages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2002

Barreiros v. JJR Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by a third-party defendant following the denial of its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries, though serious, did not constitute 'grave' injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, it was established that the third-party defendant had fulfilled the insurance requirements stipulated in the parties' agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court's initial denial of the summary judgment motion was deemed erroneous.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion GrantedOrder ReversedInsurance ComplianceSuffolk County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2006

Ramos v. DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft Fuer Immobilienfonds MBH

This case involves an appeal by a third-party defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order denied the third-party defendant's motions for summary judgment regarding contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification and contribution, along with all cross claims. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that summary judgment on contractual indemnification was premature due to outstanding discovery. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether the injuries fell within the 'grave injury' definition under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which precluded summary judgment on common-law indemnification and contribution.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewPremature DiscoveryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. No. 29-30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson; In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni

This opinion addresses two appeals concerning Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, specifically whether a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a subsequent injury to a subpart of an enumerated body "member" must be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same member. The Court of Appeals holds that WCL § 15 (7) allows for multiple SLU awards for successive injuries to the same statutory body member, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury, considered by itself, caused an increased loss of use. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Johnson v City of New York, finding that claimant Thomas Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence that his knee injuries caused a further loss of use of his legs beyond that addressed in a prior SLU award for hip injuries. Conversely, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Liuni v Gander Mountain, remitting the case for further proceedings because claimant Joseph D. Liuni did provide evidence that his later shoulder injury caused a distinct increase in the loss of use of his arm separate from a prior elbow injury. The decision clarifies the application of WCL § 15 (7) regarding successive SLU awards and the burden of proof on claimants.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentOffset RulePrior Disability CompensationEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eastern District Repetitive Stress Injury Litigation

The defendants sought to transfer 78 repetitive stress injury (RSI) cases from the Eastern District of New York to districts where the claims arose, also seeking severance of individual claims. Over 450 RSI cases, involving over 1,000 plaintiffs against more than 100 equipment manufacturers, were initially consolidated in the Eastern District. However, the Second Circuit later vacated the consolidation orders, finding it an abuse of discretion due to lack of common facts and varying state laws. Relying on this guidance, the court granted transfer in 75 cases and denied it in three, citing factors such as convenience of parties and witnesses, judicial economy, and the public interest in local adjudication of local controversies. The court also ordered severance where necessary to facilitate transfer.

Transfer of VenueMultidistrict LitigationRepetitive Stress InjuryProducts LiabilityForum Non ConveniensSeverance of ClaimsConsolidation of CasesJudicial EconomyWitness ConvenienceChoice of Forum
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 13,149 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