Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ2010922 (VNO 0552057)

Regular

Dec 17, 2012

MICHAEL ROSADO vs. KJM ELECTRIC WORKS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order for a new QME panel. The Board found no evidence that the applicant had actually been treated by Dr. Hendricks, nor a recorded stipulation for a new panel. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, specifically to address Dr. Hendricks' diagnosis of pernicious anemia and its impact on the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryOrthopedicsPernicious AnemiaUnqualified StipulationDiscovery ProcessPriority Conference

References

Case No. ADJ13011053

Regular

Sep 08, 2025

NORBERTO GARCIA vs. DOMINATION COLLABORATION, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Norberto Garcia, a cook, sustained multiple industrial injuries including to his psyche, spine, shoulders, left ankle, lower extremities/gait, kidneys, and in the form of hypertension, anemia, diabetes, and left foot amputation. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability, finding that the impairments should be added due to their synergistic effects. Defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing errors in combining impairments and apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's findings that Dr. Lonky's medical opinions supported the additive approach for disability calculation and that even with minor adjustments, the applicant's permanent disability still exceeded 100%.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHypertensive Cardiovascular DiseaseRenal DiseaseDiabetes MellitusLeft Foot AmputationGait DerangementVocational Evaluation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maldonado v. Exclusive Auto Body Supply Inc.

Claimant, a bookkeeper, sought workers' compensation benefits for aplastic anemia, alleging it was caused by exposure to paint fumes containing toluene at her workplace. Her treating hematologist, Kenneth Miller, initially linked the illness to workplace chemicals, but later evidence showed only minimal toluene exposure. Independent medical examiner Warren Silverman testified that the illness likely predated employment and the low levels of toluene could not have caused it. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board found Silverman's testimony more credible, denying the claim due to a lack of causal relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, citing the Board's discretion in resolving conflicting medical testimony.

Aplastic AnemiaToluene ExposureCausal RelationshipConflicting Medical TestimonyWorkers' Compensation BoardIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianEvidentiary WeightOccupational DiseaseMedical Opinion

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 17, 2007

Streeter v. Goord

This pro se action, filed by inmate Leon Streeter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, specifically concerning his sickle cell anemia and the management of his port-a-cath, by several correctional and medical personnel. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference by any of the named defendants. The court concluded that while plaintiff experienced pain, the medical care provided, including prescribed medications and surgical consultations, did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the entire action was dismissed.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSickle Cell AnemiaSummary JudgmentMagistrate JudgeReport-RecommendationPort-a-cath

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Axelrod

Deon Williams, a two-year-old with sickle-cell anemia, was a participant in the WIC program. His benefits were terminated after his mother, Doris Williams, had a physical altercation with a caseworker at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital. An Administrative Law Judge upheld the termination, but Deon Williams, through his mother, initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding against David Axelrod, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, seeking reinstatement of his benefits. The court found that Deon met all eligibility requirements and should not be penalized for his mother's actions, citing judicial precedents that protect children from losing public assistance due to parental misconduct. The court ultimately held that the ALJ's determination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, ordering the reinstatement of Deon Williams' WIC certification and restoration of withheld benefits.

WIC ProgramChild Nutrition ActPublic Assistance BenefitsSickle-Cell AnemiaParental MisconductCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewBenefit TerminationChild WelfareDue Process

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

MICHAEL ROSADO vs. KJM ELECTRIC WORKS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

NORBERTO GARCIA vs. DOMINATION COLLABORATION, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Claim of Maldonado v. Exclusive Auto Body Supply Inc.

Streeter v. Goord

42 U.S.C. § 1983Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSickle Cell AnemiaSummary JudgmentMagistrate JudgeReport-RecommendationPort-a-cath

Williams v. Axelrod

WIC ProgramChild Nutrition ActPublic Assistance BenefitsSickle-Cell AnemiaParental MisconductCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewBenefit TerminationChild WelfareDue Process