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. CV-24-2052
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

Claimant John Maini appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left foot, resulting from a ruptured Achilles tendon suffered in June 2022. The Board had modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 40% SLU. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board properly credited the opinion of the employer's consultant, whose interpretation of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically special consideration 6 regarding Achilles tendon ruptures, was consistent with the plain language of the guidelines and prior case law. The Court emphasized that range of motion deficits solely attributable to the Achilles tendon rupture could not be added to the SLU value assigned under special consideration 6, thereby supporting the 22.5% award.

schedule loss of useAchilles tendon ruptureworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionsubstantial evidencemaximum medical improvementrange of motionappellate revieworthopedic surgeonpermanent impairment
References
12
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Richman v. NYS Unified Court System

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant suffered an unwitnessed injury at work, leading to a presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The employer attempted to overcome this presumption with an expert's opinion suggesting the ruptured aneurysm was unrelated to employment. However, the Board found the expert's testimony not credible, particularly due to evasiveness regarding the role of work-induced stress and high blood pressure in the aneurysm's rupture. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's conclusion, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationAneurysmWork StressPresumption of CompensabilityExpert CredibilityUnwitnessed InjuryBlood PressureMedical OpinionBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ3147799 (RIV 0080159)
Regular
Aug 19, 2010

PETER TORCELLINI vs. SATURN ELECTRIC INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Saturn Electric's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Peter Torcellini sustained an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the conclusion that a work-related stressor, even if subjectively experienced by the applicant, triggered the plaque rupture causing his cardiac arrest. The Board reasoned that the applicant's testimony about finding the work stressful and the medical opinion linking the rupture to an immediate stress response provided a reasonable basis for the finding. Defendant failed to provide evidence to contradict this medical opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedFinding of FactSaturn Electric Inc.Peter TorcelliniCirculatory System InjuryHeart AttackHypoxic Brain InjuryUnderground Utility TechIndustrial Causation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission

Petitioner, operator of the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, sought to recover repair costs and replacement energy costs incurred after a steam generator rupture in 1982. The rupture was caused by a metal piece inadvertently left in the generator during 1975 repairs. Respondent, the Public Service Commission, found the petitioner imprudent for this oversight, denying recovery of the $2.5 million repair costs but allowing retention of $10.2-$14.1 million in replacement energy costs. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging respondent's decision on grounds of departing from established ratemaking principles and lack of evidentiary support. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, finding it rational, reasonably based, and supported by substantial evidence.

Nuclear Power Plant SafetyUtility Rate RecoveryRegulatory ImprudenceEmployee NegligenceSteam Generator FailureAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPublic Service CommissionRatemaking PrinciplesJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cyr v. Bero Construction Corp.

The case concerned an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a truck driver, Mr. Cyr, who died in 1975 from an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. The Board had affirmed that the aneurysm and its rupture were causally related to an industrial accident Mr. Cyr suffered in 1965. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the medical opinion supporting causal relation, specifically from Dr. Rizzuto, lacked sufficient certainty. The court, referencing legal precedents like Matott v Ward, clarified that expert medical testimony must signify a probability supported by a rational basis, not necessarily 'reasonable medical certainty.' Upon reviewing Dr. Rizzuto's testimony, the court found it met this standard, confirming the causal relationship, and thus affirmed the Board's decisions.

Aortic AneurysmCausal RelationIndustrial AccidentDeath Benefits ClaimExpert Medical TestimonyMedical Certainty StandardWorkers' Compensation AppealsProbative ForceMedical Opinion ProbabilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ7834593
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GEORGE MOEN, III vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding a lien claim for a human tendon used in applicant's knee surgery. While the WCJ correctly found the services were necessary, neither party provided sufficient evidence to determine the reasonable value of the lien. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further development of the record. Lien claimant must prove its bill was not bundled and present evidence of a reasonable fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantAccess MediquipIndustrial InjuryKnee InjuryDeputy SheriffACL Tendon ReplacementPatella Tendon AllograftHuman TendonBundled Payment
References
1
Case No. VNO 0539404
Regular
Apr 03, 2008

DUANNA CARLISLE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a widow's claim for death benefits after her police officer husband died from a ruptured aortic aneurysm. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the weekly payment rate for death benefits. While affirming the total benefit amount and the date of injury, the Board amended the award to reflect a higher weekly payment rate of $840.00, consistent with current statutory guidelines for temporary total disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsRuptured Aortic AneurysmHypertensionPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryDate of DeathLabor Code Section 4702Temporary Total Disability Indemnity
References
2
Case No. ADJ8182717, ADJ8253375, ADJ8253377
Regular
May 18, 2018

VICTOR MCGILL vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a judge's decision invalidating a chiropractic QME panel. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the judge's order was not a final determination. However, the Board granted removal, finding that an orthopedic QME panel was necessary for the applicant's foot and Achilles tendon injuries, as chiropractic was not the appropriate specialty. The decision rescinds the judge's order and returns the matter for further proceedings to obtain an additional orthopedic QME evaluation.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationQMEMedical DirectorChiropracticOrthopedic SurgeryPanelFindings of Fact and OrderMedical Unit
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 36 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