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-23-0342
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Tyler Wright

Claimant Tyler Wright appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision granting him a 45% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right knee injury sustained in 2018. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 51.667% SLU, but the Board modified this to 45%, crediting the initial opinions of orthopedic physician Gregg Nicandri and independent medical examiner Martin Gingras. Both physicians initially assessed a 45% SLU based on claimant's range of motion deficits, consistent with the 2018 New York State Guidelines for Determining Impairment. Although Nicandri later revised his assessment to 52.5% by proportionally adjusting values, and claimant's attorney argued for 51.667%, the Board found that a 45% SLU was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the guidelines, particularly section 7.4, which outlines how to assess combined flexion and extension deficits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

schedule loss of useknee injuryrange of motionpermanency evaluationworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionindependent medical examinationAppellate Divisionsubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ2218706 (VNO 0501260) ADJ1058308 (VNO 0482296)
Regular
Apr 19, 2010

DONNA DeRUSSY vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, TRAVELER'S INSURANCE, SAFETY NATIONAL, FRONTIER INSURANCE

This case concerns appeals from a workers' compensation judge's decision regarding liability for cumulative trauma injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the determination of the date of injury under Labor Code § 5412, which is crucial for assigning liability to the insurer covering the last year of exposure. The Board found the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient clarity and specific findings regarding disability and knowledge of causation. Therefore, the prior decision was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings to make clear findings consistent with established legal principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDonna DeRussyAntelope Valley Health Care SystemTravelers InsuranceSafety NationalFrontier Insurancecumulative traumadate of injuryLabor Code §5500.5Labor Code §5412
References
2
Case No. ADJ1210556 (AGO 0018589)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWIN MILLER vs. KEEBLER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decisions regarding medical mileage and penalties. The Board found the WCJ failed to properly consider statutory factors in determining a "reasonable geographic area" for the applicant's medical treatment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decisions and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision addressing all outstanding issues, including the definition of a reasonable geographic area for treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical MileageReasonable Geographic AreaLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)WCJBoltonRamirez
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zechmann v. Canisteo Volunteer Fire Department

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding death benefits. The claimant's decedent had applied for these benefits. The Board determined that the claim was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, making the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable for the payments under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision and amended decision, holding that the Special Fund is responsible for the payment of death benefits.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesAppealsStatutory InterpretationLiabilityClaimantDecedentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Paul Smith's College

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient record support for the finding. The court upheld the Board's determination, citing claimant's testimony that he was injured while cleaning a chainsaw on employer's equipment during slack time, a common practice. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, and issues of credibility were for the Board to resolve. The decision and amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentPersonal Use of EquipmentSubstantial EvidenceCredibilityBoard DeterminationAppellate ReviewInjury during workCommon Practice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Showing 1-10 of 22,943 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