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 Brown v. Harden Furniture

Claimant's decedent, a truck driver, died after experiencing stomach pains while unloading heavy furniture. An autopsy revealed bronchopneumonia and hypertensive cardiovascular disease as the cause. The claimant filed for workers' compensation, with a consulting physician linking the death to work exertion. The employer's medical consultant agreed on work-relatedness but highlighted pre-existing conditions like obesity and cardiomyopathy. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal relationship and ruled that apportionment was not applicable because the pre-existing condition was not compensable and the decedent could perform his job duties despite it. The self-insured employer appealed this determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

ApportionmentWorkers' CompensationCausationPre-existing ConditionWork-Related DeathTruck DriverExertionCardiovascular DiseaseBronchopneumoniaMedical Evaluations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McClam v. American Axle & Manufacturing

Claimant suffered two right shoulder injuries, one in 1997 while working for CF Motorfreight, and another in 2000 while working for American Axle & Manufacturing. After the second injury, American Axle sought apportionment of the workers' compensation award, which was initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but limited to medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that any apportionment should be deferred until a finding of permanency is made. American Axle appealed this deferral, arguing against the limitation of apportionment. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was an unappealable interlocutory decision, thus avoiding piecemeal review of workers’ compensation issues.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentShoulder InjurySchedule Loss of UseInterlocutory AppealDeferral of AwardPermanency FindingBoard ReviewMedical ExaminationEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rafferty v. Four Corners, LLC

Claimant sustained two work-related back injuries, one in 1996 causing permanent partial disability and another in 2003 affecting his back and neck. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that claimant had a marked partial disability and apportioned it equally between both accidents. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this apportionment decision, prompting the claimant's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial medical evidence and the claimant's work history supported the application of apportionment for his current disability. The finding of apportionment, however, did not extend to medical treatment for the claimant's neck and upper right extremity.

ApportionmentDisabilityWorkers' Compensation AwardWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryNeck InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidencePrior Compensable InjurySocial Security Disability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2011

Claim of Wiess v. Mittal

Claimant, a steel worker from 1965 to 2008, filed an occupational hearing loss claim. His initial employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, was succeeded by Arcelor Mittal. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned the award based on the claimant's length of service with each employer. Bethlehem appealed, arguing Arcelor had not satisfied notice requirements and challenging the apportionment method. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Bethlehem had actual knowledge of the claimant's hearing loss through annual testing and credible testimony, and affirmed apportionment based on length of service. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no error in the Board's findings regarding actual knowledge or apportionment method.

Occupational hearing lossApportionmentActual knowledgeNotice requirementsEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-eeMedical evidenceBurden of proofAdverse inferenceIndustrial injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Good v. Town of Brutus

A claimant, employed as a court clerk since 2002, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. She was awarded a 25% schedule loss of use of the left hand. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier sought apportionment of liability with her two most recent prior employers under Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding no medical evidence of the condition arising from prior employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, stating that despite the claimant experiencing symptoms previously and an independent medical examiner suggesting apportionment, there was no objective medical proof that she contracted the condition while working for a previous employer. The court emphasized that the focus for apportionment is whether the claimant contracted the occupational disease during that specific employment.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 44Prior EmployersMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminerSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McCloskey v. Marriott Corp.

Claimant sustained two back injuries, one in 1987 while employed by Marriott Corporation and another in 1991 while working for South Hills Deli, both leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board reopened the 1987 case and determined that the claimant's disability was 25% causally related to the 1987 accident and 75% to the 1991 accident. Marriott Corporation and its workers' compensation carrier appealed this apportionment decision, arguing that apportionment was unwarranted because the claimant had returned to work, engaged in recreational activities, and denied prior disability in a 1991 personal injury action. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that apportionment is a factual issue for the Board to determine and found that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including medical reports. This decision upheld the Board's finding of causal relationship and the 25%/75% apportionment despite the claimant's earlier non-disclosure.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentWork-Related AccidentCausal RelationshipPrior InjuryMedical ReportSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
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

Claim of Estrada v. Peepels Mechanical Corp.

The claimant's case was established for occupational disease resulting in bilateral hearing loss. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the date of disablement and, after initial discharge, reinstated the State Insurance Fund (Fund) to produce an apportionment report between occupational disease and traumatic hearing loss. The Fund appealed this decision. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently found the Fund was not the proper party as it did not cover the employer on the date of disablement and reversed the order for the apportionment report. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier then appealed the Board's decision. The higher court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that a claim for traumatic hearing loss was never formally made or pending before the Board.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Hearing LossApportionmentDate of DisablementWorkers' Compensation CarrierState Insurance FundBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewTraumatic Hearing LossWCLJ Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hobbs v. Lavine

Petitioner's home relief assistance was discontinued by the New York City Department of Social Services based on a finding that she was fully employed. This determination was affirmed by the respondent after a hearing. The court found that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as the city agency's evidence consisted only of two vague case-record entries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the determination was annulled, with petitioner's assistance directed to be reinstated retroactively.

Home ReliefPublic AssistanceSocial ServicesEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative ReviewRetroactive BenefitsDiscontinuation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,175 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