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 Pedro v. Liberty Lines Express

The claimant, a mechanic, sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his right thumb. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined this constituted a 50% schedule loss of the use of his right hand and awarded benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the injury was exclusively to the thumb and that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not explicitly allow for a single digit loss to be compensated as a partial loss of hand function. The court adopted a flexible approach, asserting that schedule allowances should not be deemed exclusive when treating a smaller member's loss as a percentage of a larger member's loss. Based on the testimony of the Board’s principal medical examiner, who stated the thumb injury diminished the prehensile function of the entire right hand, the court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers’ CompensationSchedule LossThumb AmputationRight Hand InjuryPrehensile FunctionAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyInjury CompensationStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2015

Drake v. SRC, Inc.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 31, 2015, which ruled he sustained a permanent partial disability and a 15% loss of wage-earning capacity after a December 2010 work injury. The claimant argued for a 32% loss of wage-earning capacity, which would extend benefit duration, based on post-injury wages. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between calculating loss of wage-earning capacity for benefit duration based on vocational factors and wage-earning capacity based on actual earnings. It found substantial evidence supported the 15% loss of wage-earning capacity, considering the claimant's functional abilities, impairment severity, age, education, and language proficiency.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVocational FactorsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBenefit DurationWork InjuryNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
10
Case No. CV-24-1104
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Matter of Foster v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Claimant Vincent Foster, a youth division aide, sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2015 and 2019. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision classifying his permanent impairments as a nonschedule permanent partial disability with a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity, but denied wage loss benefits due to his continued pre-injury wages. This classification was based on the medical opinion of Dr. Shanker Krishnamurthy, who found a nonschedule classification more appropriate given the difficulty in reconciling schedule loss of use awards with the claimant's continued ability to work full-time despite chronic function loss. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's discretion in resolving conflicting medical opinions and assessing credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ)Permanent Partial Disability (PPD)Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Nonschedule ClassificationWage-Earning CapacityMedical Examiner DisagreementApportionment of InjuriesImpairment GuidelinesAppellate Division ReviewYouth Division Aide Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Claim of King v. Riccelli Enterprises

Claimant Laurence King, a truck driver, sustained neck and back injuries in April 2013 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market after being laid off in November 2013. A WCLJ later found reattachment to the labor market and awarded benefits with an 81% loss of wage-earning capacity. On review, the Board rescinded the reattachment finding and determined a permanent partial disability with a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding of no reattachment to the labor market due to insufficient job search efforts. However, the court reversed the Board's finding of a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity, concluding it was not supported by substantial medical evidence regarding functional ability and loss, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician ReportAppellate ReviewRemandSubstantial EvidenceVocational Factors
References
11
Case No. CV-24-1104
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Foster

Claimant sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2015 and 2019 while working for the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. His workers' compensation claims were established, and physicians disagreed on whether his permanent impairments were amenable to a nonschedule classification or a schedule loss of use award. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity and classified him with a permanent partial disability, but denied wage loss benefits due to continued pre-injury wages. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, crediting the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Shanker Krishnamurthy, who argued that a nonschedule classification was more appropriate given claimant's continued ability to work full-time despite chronic loss of function in multiple extremities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseNonschedule ClassificationAppellate ReviewMedical Opinion ConflictWage-Earning CapacityThird Judicial DepartmentOrthopedic SurgeonSubstantial EvidenceClaimant Appeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grugan v. The Record

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left hand in 2007, leading to a dispute over whether she should receive a permanent partial disability classification or a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately issued a 15% schedule loss of use award, which the claimant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the determination. The court noted that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and her condition was stable, factors supporting a schedule loss of use award. Conflicting medical opinions from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner were resolved by the Board within its discretion.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMaximum Medical ImprovementConflicting Medical Opinions
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,538 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