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

Claim of Harrington v. L.C. Whitford Co.

The claimant, a construction worker, experienced a severe exacerbation of pre-existing asthma after exposure to burning lead paint fumes in June 1996. A certified pulmonologist, Richard Evans, determined the exposure caused a permanent and total disability. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an accidental injury causing permanent and total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in August 2001. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the condition was pre-existing and only temporarily aggravated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that the work-site exposure significantly exacerbated the claimant's stabilized asthma, leading to a permanent and total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityAsthma ExacerbationOccupational ExposureLead Paint FumesPre-existing ConditionMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Williams v. Preferred Meal Systems

Claimant, a driver, suffered injuries to his right knee and back in 2009 while making a delivery, leading to an established workers' compensation claim. The claim was later amended to include consequential adjustment disorder, and the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately found that claimant had sustained a permanent total disability from May 2012 onward. The employer, workers’ compensation carrier, and policy administrator appealed this decision, arguing that further proof was needed regarding claimant's vocational and functional capacity. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that extensive evidence of vocational and functional capacity is not required when medical proof demonstrates a permanent total disability and inability to engage in any gainful employment, as benefits continue for life in such cases. The court found substantial evidence in the opinions of treating and independent medical examination orthopedists to support the finding of permanent total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityMedical ProofVocational CapacityFunctional CapacityAppellate ReviewNew York LawDisability BenefitsClaimant Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanDermark v. Frontier Insurance

In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer and its carrier challenged two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's permanent total disability. The claimant sustained a back injury in 1998 and was initially found to have a permanent partial disability. However, the Board later modified the award, concluding the claimant had a permanent total disability after August 2004, a finding supported by the testimony of her treating orthopedic surgeon despite conflicting medical evidence. The employer also contested the denial of their applications for reconsideration and/or full Board review, arguing insufficient evidence and an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no arbitrary or capricious action in denying reconsideration, as no new evidence was presented.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard's DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mearns v. Sunoco, Inc.

Claimant, an assistant manager at a convenience store, suffered severe psychological injuries including panic attacks and nightmares after being falsely accused and physically accosted by a police officer following a store break-in. She subsequently ceased working and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled, and the Workers’ Compensation Board later upheld, that she had sustained a permanent total disability. Despite some conflicting medical opinions regarding the severity of her disability, the Board was found to have properly resolved the evidence in favor of the claimant. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no basis to disturb the finding of permanent total disability.

permanent total disabilitypsychological traumaworkers' compensation appealmedical expert testimonyconflicting medical evidencepolice misconductworkplace incidentmental healthadministrative lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Brady v. Northeast Riggers & Erectors

In March 2012, the claimant, a union construction laborer, sustained a work-related back and abdomen injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the claimant attached to the labor market but deemed a total industrial disability finding premature because permanent disability had not yet been classified. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board erred in declining to classify him with a temporary total industrial disability. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that a classification of temporary total industrial disability cannot be made without a prior determination of permanency.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilityPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityLabor MarketAppellate DivisionBoard DecisionPremature DeterminationGainful EmploymentWork History
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1983

Claim of McNeil v. Geary

The claimant, a groom, injured her left knee in 1979 and was initially found temporarily totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board later reclassified her injury as a 15% permanent partial disability of the left leg, dating from the time of injury, and increased her benefits based on wage expectancy due to her being under 25. The employer appealed, arguing that wage expectancy benefits should not apply to the period of temporary total disability and that the record didn't substantiate a permanent partial disability ab initio. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that reclassification is a factual determination within the Board's sole province and was based on substantial evidence, and that the Board has continuing jurisdictional power to modify findings.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage ExpectancyWorkers' Compensation LawInjury ReclassificationBoard JurisdictionSubstantial EvidenceLeft Knee InjuryGroomRiding AcademyTemporary Total Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yanarella v. IBM Corp.

Claimant, a computer programmer, alleged total industrial disability due to multiple chemical sensitivities incurred during her work in a manufacturing environment. The Workers’ Compensation Board's medical examiner and an independent rehabilitation report both concluded she was only permanently partially disabled and remained reasonably employable. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge classified her as permanently partially disabled, a finding which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed this decision, raising procedural arguments regarding denied cross-examination and hearings, but the court found these issues were waived or lacked merit as they were not properly raised or requested. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting the conclusion that the claimant was not totally industrially disabled.

chemical sensitivitiesindustrial disabilitycomputer programmerpermanent partial disabilitymedical evidencecross-examination waiverappellate reviewWorkers' Compensation Boardvocational assessmentdue process
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Wohlfeil v. Sharel Ventures, LLC

The claimant, injured in October 2007, was initially found by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board to have a permanent partial disability and a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity. The claimant subsequently appealed this decision. Medical experts, including the claimant's treating physician, Clifford Ameduri, and an independent medical examiner, Guy Corkhill, consistently testified that the claimant was totally disabled and incapable of any gainful employment. Despite this overwhelming medical evidence, the Board concluded that the claimant could perform sedentary work. The appellate court reversed the Board's findings, determining that they were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The court concluded that the evidence actually warranted a finding of a permanent total disability for the claimant.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacitySpinal FusionSpinal Cord StimulatorMedical TestimonyIndependent Medical ExaminationSedentary WorkTotal DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Paez v. Lackman Culinary Services

Claimant, an immigrant, injured his lower back while working as a food service worker in 2010. His workers' compensation claim was established, leading to surgery in 2012 for a herniated disc. Despite surgery, he continued to experience pain and was unable to return to his job. A WCLJ determined he had a permanent partial disability and an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board failed to consider total industrial disability, an issue he had raised before the WCLJ. The appellate court found that the Board did err by not addressing the total industrial disability claim and remitted the matter for further proceedings, as total industrial disability can have a more favorable outcome than loss of wage-earning capacity.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityTotal Industrial DisabilityLumbar DiscectomyLaminectomyMedical ExaminationRemittalAppellate ReviewBack InjuryFood Service Worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,757 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