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 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ancrum v. New York City Board of Education

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from September 22, 2008, which affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that the claimant had no further causally related disability after March 14, 2007. The initial claim stemmed from a compensable injury sustained in February 2005, which the employer subsequently controverted based on an independent medical examination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that it was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board had the discretion to resolve conflicting medical opinions. Despite a chiropractor's testimony of a permanent partial disability, the court noted that the treating physician and the employer's medical expert opined against a work-related disability, which the Board was entitled to credit.

Disability BenefitsCausationMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardBoard DiscretionChiropractic ExpertEmployer's Medical Expert
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hercules v. United Artists Communications, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 20, 1988, which ruled that the claimant did not sustain a causally related disability. The Board had found the claimant's initial claim for a right knee injury, sustained in September 1982, barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 due to late filing in November 1984. Regarding a second claim for injuries sustained on October 11, 1983, the Board determined only the right shoulder injury was causally related to the work accident, denying a causally related disability for other injuries. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments that the Board's findings lacked substantial evidence, failed to consider all relevant evidence, or erred in denying requests for reopening and reconsideration. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and its discretionary denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Workers' CompensationAppealDisabilityCausal RelationshipStatute of LimitationsEvidenceCredibilityJudicial DiscretionKnee InjuryShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brockington v. University of Rochester

This case addresses an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that granted a reduced earnings award to a claimant suffering from a causally related partial disability. The employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier contested the award, arguing that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the claimant testified that her inability to work stemmed from her deteriorating health, an explanation accepted by the Board. Medical evidence, including reports from her treating physician and an independent medical examination, corroborated her claims of 50% disability, chronic pain, and a preclusion from returning to work due to chronic lumbar strain. The Board's finding that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market was affirmed on appeal, as it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationReduced Earnings AwardVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPartial DisabilityChronic PainLumbar StrainMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiltsie v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

Claimant suffered a compensable low back injury in 1995, continuing work with restrictions and ADA accommodations. In 2003, the employer's decision to change his shift caused claimant stress, leading his primary physician to diagnose chest pain syndrome, agoraphobia, and depression, and advise him to stop working. Initially awarded benefits for a period, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently denied further benefits, concluding that claimant's departure from work was for reasons unrelated to his back disability. Claimant appealed, contending his back injury prevented him from the new shift, but the Board's determination, supported by other evidence, found he left due to stress from the shift dispute rather than his back condition. The Board's decision, which included an assessment of claimant's testimony and medical evidence, was affirmed, as it was supported by credible evidence.

Low Back InjuryAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Workplace AccommodationShift Schedule ChangeStress-Related IllnessChest Pain SyndromeAgoraphobiaDepression DiagnosisCredibility of Medical OpinionPermanent Partial Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. Hudson Correctional Facility

Claimant, a correction counselor, ceased working in August 1992 at age 52 due to various health issues, including established work-related stress, anxiety, and panic disorder, eventually retiring in July 1995. A WCLJ initially found permanent total disability and a moderate causally related permanent partial disability, deeming the voluntary withdrawal issue moot. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding a moderate partial causally related disability until 1995 but ruling claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market upon retirement, denying further benefits. The appellate court reversed, clarifying that a work-related disability only needs to contribute to, not be the sole cause of, retirement to avoid voluntary withdrawal, and found the medical evidence established total disability at the time of retirement, partially due to work-related conditions.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityStressAnxietyPanic DisorderMedical Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Conway-Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The carrier appealed this decision. To establish entitlement to reimbursement, the carrier needed to prove a preexisting permanent impairment that hindered job potential, a subsequent work-related injury, and a permanent disability caused by both conditions that is materially and substantially greater than from the work-related injury alone. The Board found the carrier failed to prove that the claimant’s preexisting osteoarthritis hindered her employment. The appeals court affirmed the Board's decision, citing a lack of evidence that the claimant's arthritic condition caused pain, missed work, or imposed restrictions prior to her workplace accident.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentOsteoarthritisWork-Related InjuryPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityCarrier AppealBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Guz v. Jewelers Machinist, Inc.

A factory worker claimant sustained a work-related injury in March 2002, leading to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The case was established for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, later amended to include a neck injury and aggravated back condition. In 2007, a major depressive disorder was added, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related psychiatric disability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this finding. The claimant appealed this reversal. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that the claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship with competent medical evidence and that the Board is the sole judge of witness credibility. The court found that the Board’s determination, which was based on rejecting the claimant's treating psychiatrist's testimony due to lack of complete information and relying on subjective accounts, was supported by substantial evidence.

Psychiatric DisabilityMajor Depressive DisorderCausationMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsCarpal Tunnel SyndromeNeck InjuryBack Condition
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 14,283 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