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

Schmidt v. Falls Dodge, Inc.

The claimant was awarded a 21.43% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss in 2007. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this award was not subject to temporary disability benefits the claimant was already receiving from earlier workers' compensation cases. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that a Court of Appeals decision overruled prior holdings regarding the overlap of schedule and nonschedule awards. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between schedule awards for future earnings loss and nonschedule awards for temporary disability during a limited time frame, concluding they do not overlap.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary DisabilityBinaural Hearing LossAward OverlapAppellate DecisionInsurance FundEmployer LiabilityMedical BenefitsEarnings Loss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant suffered compensable right knee injuries in 1992 and 1994, leading to a stipulated 22.5% schedule loss of use award in 2001, after which the cases were closed. Upon reopening in 2005, liability shifted from the employer's workers' compensation carrier to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Following a recurrence of injuries in October 2005, the Fund sought a credit for the prior schedule loss of use award paid by the carrier, which was initially denied but later granted by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the Fund should not receive credit for awards commencing more than two years prior to the transfer of liability, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) and prior case law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that the Fund assumes the carrier's rights and responsibilities, including any existing credits, and distinguished the cited precedent based on a lack of injury reclassification in the current case.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSchedule Loss of Use AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCredit Against AwardsLiability TransferRecurrence of InjuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionStipulationCase Reopening
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cruz v. City of New York Department of Children's Services

Claimant, injured in an automobile accident while working, received workers' compensation benefits and later settled a third-party action. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the self-insured employer was not entitled to offset the third-party settlement against a schedule loss of use (SLU) award, even for the portion initially designated as temporary total disability. The employer appealed, arguing the offset was permissible because the weekly award exceeded statutory thresholds for basic economic loss. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule loss of use award is not allocable to any specific period of disability and thus is not subject to offset under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 against first-party benefits, regardless of initial labeling or monthly rate.

Schedule Loss of Use Award OffsetThird-Party SettlementTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityBasic Economic LossNo-Fault LawInsurance LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Appellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. P & D GMC Sales, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an award for occupational lung disease. The claimant, an autobody repairer, was found to have a permanent total disability, and the Board held the employer and its insurer fully liable for the benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge ordered the present value of the award to be deposited into the Aggregate Trust Fund, which the Board affirmed. The employer appealed, arguing for a hearing on the award's present value and consideration of the claimant's life expectancy in actuarial computations. However, the Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer's arguments lacked merit and citing Workers' Compensation Law § 27 (5) and prior case law.

Occupational Lung DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityAggregate Trust FundActuarial ComputationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLiability ApportionmentLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Capodagli v. West Seneca Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a to a claimant's award of benefits. The claimant was injured in October 2003, received benefits, and the case was closed. The employer later sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund requested claimant's testimony regarding advance payments of compensation, which was denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, who determined liability shifted. The Board affirmed. The appellate court found that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the record lacked information on whether the claimant performed light or limited duties while receiving full wages, which could prevent the shifting of liability. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 25-aAdvance PaymentsLiability ShiftMedical TreatmentLight Duty WorkSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mandziara v. Lowe's Home Centers

In 1995, the claimant suffered a back injury in Pennsylvania, leading to a workers' compensation claim. After multiple surgeries, symptoms were resolved by June 2001. In May 2003, while working for Lowe's Home Centers in Broome County, the claimant re-injured their back, initiating a new claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that apportionment did not apply to the workers' compensation award. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that apportionment is a factual issue and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court highlighted the claimant's asymptomatic period of over 14 months prior to the 2003 injury.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentBack InjuryPrior InjurySubstantial EvidenceAsymptomatic PeriodMedical OpinionCausal RelationshipAppeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2002

In re the Claim of Miller v. North Syracuse Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning overlapping workers' compensation awards. The claimant, a food services worker, filed two separate claims: one for occupational disease to her shoulders, leading to a schedule loss of use award, and another for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which resulted in a temporary total disability award for the period from December 13, 1999, to February 14, 2000. The State Insurance Fund argued that the schedule loss of use award should be suspended for this period to prevent an overlap. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling in favor of suspending the schedule award. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule award is not allocable to a specific period of disability and therefore does not overlap with a temporary total disability award covering a limited timeframe. The court distinguished this from cases involving permanent disability awards. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for recalculation of the claimant’s award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Total DisabilityOverlapping AwardsEarning CapacityOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewRecalculation of Award
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

Claim of Sola v. Corwin

Claimant sustained a left foot injury while working for the employer and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer's Independent Medical Examination (IME) report was deemed inadmissible by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge for non-compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, specifically regarding submission timelines. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, accepting the treating physician's opinion of a 35% schedule loss of use of the foot. The employer appealed this affirmation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the IME report was properly excluded and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence from the treating physician's testimony.

Schedule loss of useWorkers' Compensation BoardIME report preclusionWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Admissibility of evidenceTreating physician testimonyFoot injuryMaximum medical improvementAppellate reviewSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Feinberg-Smith Associates, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision, finding apportionment inapplicable to the claimant's workers' compensation award, was appealed and subsequently affirmed. The claimant sustained back injuries in 1983, 1995 (compensable), and 1999 (current claim). Medical experts agreed on apportioning the 1999 injury with a pre-existing, non-compensable degenerative condition, but not with prior compensable injuries. The court held that apportionment is inapplicable when a prior condition is not a compensable injury and the claimant effectively performs their job despite it. The court further clarified the distinction with precedent regarding prior compensable injuries.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentBack InjuryPre-existing ConditionCompensable InjuryDegenerative ConditionMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPrior Accidents
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Workers' Compensation Board v. Met-Impro Services, Inc.

This case involves four related actions under Workers' Compensation Law § 26 concerning the enforcement of a Workers' Compensation award. The Supreme Court had erroneously granted defendant Robert San Miguel's motion to vacate judgments against him. San Miguel, identified as the president of the corporate employers, was held personally liable for unpaid benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a (1) (a). The court clarified that personal liability for corporate officers does not depend on active management or involvement in the underlying accident. Furthermore, there is no statutory basis to vacate a judgment merely because an officer was not specifically named in the initial administrative determination. Consequently, San Miguel's vague denial of involvement was insufficient, and his motion to vacate the judgments against him was denied.

Workers' CompensationPersonal LiabilityCorporate OfficerJudgment VacationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityUnpaid BenefitsNew York Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 25,836 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