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
Dec 13, 1979

In re the Claim of D'Amore v. Town of Hempstead

A claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding injuries sustained during employment. The claimant was injured by a falling heater, striking his head, right big toe, and leg, leading to subsequent ulceration, gangrene, and amputations of the toe and leg. Although initial medical reports only noted a head injury, later testimony from the claimant and medical experts, Dr. Grauer and Dr. Ahmad, established the link between the workplace accident and the toe and leg injuries. The Board found the injuries causally related. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the findings.

AmputationGangreneUlcerationToe injuryLeg injuryHead injuryWorkplace accidentCredibilitySubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. LAO 829404, LAO 815773
Regular
Jul 20, 2007

LOLONDRA McCOY vs. AVIATION SAFEGUARDS aka COMMAND SECURITY, KEMPER GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous award of vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found no substantial evidence to support the applicant's claim that her diabetes, left leg amputation, or right toe amputation were industrially caused, despite the treating physician's opinion. The case was remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify industrial causation for the specific body parts claimed as injured.

Vocational RehabilitationIndustrial CausationDiabetesAmputationQMETreating DoctorCompromise and ReleaseThomas FindingContinuous TraumaLabor Code section 5908.5
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1985

Ham v. Rumsey Sheet Metal, Inc.

In September 1980, the claimant's decedent injured his right great toe at work. He sought medical attention in September 1981 for a persistent infection, which was later diagnosed as malignant melanoma. Despite the amputation of his toe, the carcinoma metastasized, leading to his death in May 1982. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded death benefits, and the carrier appealed, citing lack of causal relationship and improper notice of injury. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the causal relationship and concluding that the employer had actual notice of the injury.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMalignant MelanomaTraumaCausal RelationshipNotice of InjuryMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAggravationAmputation
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06228 [153 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

Matter of Everett v. Sodexo, Inc.

Eugene Everett, a dishwasher, suffered a foot injury at work when a large pot fell on it, leading to the amputation of his toe and ultimately half of his left foot. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, which his employer, Sodexo, Inc., and its carrier opposed, asserting the injury was due to his diabetes and that he made misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the injury causally related and no misrepresentation, a decision affirmed by a Workers' Compensation Board panel and then by the full Board. The employer's appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, was dismissed. The court ruled that the right to appeal from the Board panel's decision terminated upon the issuance of the full Board's superseding decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorkplace InjuryAmputation ClaimCausation DisputeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAppeal DismissalSuperseding JudgmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shell v. Poughkeepsie Housing Authority

Claimant suffered a lawn mowing accident in July 1994, resulting in the amputation of two toes and a permanent 50% loss of function in his right foot. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Board awarded him total and partial disability benefits, but these were suspended after he failed to appear for medical examinations. Claimant was later incarcerated on criminal charges, prompting a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to close his case until his release, a decision affirmed by the Board. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration of the Board's decision was denied on April 5, 1999. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that the appeal was largely untimely regarding previous decisions and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationAmputationDisability BenefitsMedical ExaminationIncarcerationReconsiderationTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionStatutory Time PeriodNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Needle v. Alling & Cory, Inc.

Gerald Needle, a former employee of Ailing and Cory, Inc., sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The emotional distress claim was previously dismissed. Needle, who suffered from diabetes leading to toe amputations and permanent physical restrictions, argued that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his warehouse associate position. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting Needle was not a qualified individual with a disability and no suitable accommodation or vacant position existed. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ADA claim, finding Needle could not perform essential job functions and no reasonable accommodation was viable. The court also denied the defendant's counterclaim for COBRA benefits and dismissed it.

Disability discriminationADAEmployment lawSummary judgmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsCOBRA benefitsDismissal with prejudiceDiabetic complicationsAmputations
References
37
Case No. 535669
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Eddy Irizarry

Claimant Eddy Irizarry appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits, which alleged injuries to his right great toe and foot from stepping on a nail in February 2021, ultimately leading to amputation. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially disallowed the claim, and the Board affirmed this, but neither provided specific findings of fact or conclusions of law. The Appellate Division found that the absence of these explicit findings precluded intelligent appellate review, making it impossible to ascertain whether the claim was denied due to disbelief of a work-related accident or insufficient medical evidence regarding causation. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to include appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsFoot InjuryToe AmputationCausation DisputeIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLack of Factual FindingsRemittalBoard Decision Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2001

Padilla v. Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff, a laborer, who suffered an injury while working on a renovation project for Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corporation, whose construction manager was Humphreys & Harding, Inc. The plaintiff was guiding a concrete sump housing into an excavation vault when it slipped, amputating two toes. The plaintiff initiated an action against the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR part 23). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against Humphreys & Harding for indemnification. The motion court initially dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, but on appeal, the decision was reversed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently raised triable issues of fact regarding violations of Industrial Code sections 23-9.2 (g), 23-9.4 (e) (1) and (2), and 23-9.2 (b) (2), which were concrete enough to support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Construction accidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code violationsSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNondelegable dutyTriable issues of factPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyBackhoe operation
References
8
Case No. ADJ9799720
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

HOWARD GARNER vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a transcription error, amending the findings to reflect an injury to the applicant's left "little" toe instead of the left "middle" toe. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied, as the Board found no evidence to support claims of injury to his hand, hip, or a deformed left little toe, and the medical examiner did examine the relevant body part. The decision affirmed the findings of no permanent disability or need for further treatment for the left little toe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactInmate LaborerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerTranscription ErrorLeft Little ToePermanent Partial DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 102 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