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

Matter of Lichten v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a bus driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to an occupational disease stemming from repetitive stress injuries to his legs, including his hips, knees, and feet, caused by his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the case for bilateral hips but disallowed the claim for bilateral knees. This disallowance was upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision. Medical testimony presented conflicting opinions regarding the causal relationship of claimant's knee condition to his work activities. The Board's decision to discredit the treating orthopedist's opinion was found to be supported by substantial evidence and was within its authority concerning credibility determinations. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryBilateral KneesCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionBus Driver
References
6
Case No. ADJ9387309
Regular
Oct 20, 2020

ENEDINA GONZALEZ vs. VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied the applicant's claim for bilateral knee injury. The Board found that the medical evidence regarding the applicant's knee injury was not substantial and required further development. Specifically, the Board deferred the issue of injury AOE/COE to the bilateral knees and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. This action allows for the re-evaluation of the knee injury claim, considering potential contributions from post-injury weight gain.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardVeolia TransportationAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderArising Out of and Occurring in the Course of EmploymentBilateral KneesCumulative InjurySpecific Injury
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. ADJ 924444 (LAO 0841815) ADJ 7065158
Regular
May 09, 2018

CESAR ESPINOZA vs. FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a joint award of 100% permanent disability for an applicant who sustained a specific injury to his right shoulder, left knee, and back, and a cumulative trauma injury to his bilateral shoulders, knees, back, and right knee. The Board found the applicant's industrial injuries were "inextricably intertwined," justifying an unapportioned award as per *Benson*. Furthermore, the Board relied on the vocational expert's opinion that the applicant was unable to find and sustain gainful employment due to his injuries, without considering non-industrial factors. The defendant's arguments regarding erroneous permanent total disability findings and the need for separate apportionment were rejected.

ApportionmentInextricably IntertwinedCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Vocational ExpertJoint AwardBenson v. WCABDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
4
Case No. POM 0244323, POM 0260214
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

BERTHA KOCIAN vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMER JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the date of injury for applicant's bilateral hand and right knee cumulative trauma claim, changing it to 1980-March 22, 2001. The Board affirmed the original decision denying apportionment of permanent disability to pre-existing conditions, finding defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence to support their claim. Applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral hands and right knee, resulting in 67 percent permanent disability.

KocianClougherty PackingFarmer JohnPOM 0244323POM 0260214Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardssausage stufferindustrial injuryright knee
References
0
Case No. ADJ2466188, ADJ4344781, ADJ4528511
Regular
Feb 14, 2023

RAQUEL GARCIA vs. CON AGRA FOODS, INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS, BASIC AMERICAN, CIGA for LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to affirm a prior order vacating a change of administrator and to affirm the original findings and award. The WCAB found the December 5, 2022 order changing administrators was void due to lack of due process. They also affirmed the November 21, 2022 findings, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's bilateral knee injury constituted a single cumulative trauma ending in 2005, supported by medical evidence, despite prior specific knee injuries. The WCAB determined that the date of injury was established when the AME opined on cumulative trauma to the knees in 2008, as the applicant's prior work aggravated these conditions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder VacatingOrder Changing AdministratorsCIGAOld Republic InsuranceSedgwick CMSCumulative TraumaBilateral KneesDate of Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Riescher v. Central Hudson Gas Electric

A claimant suffered two left knee injuries, first in 1999 and second in 2009, both while working as a lineman for a utility company. The first injury, covered by Alliance National Insurance Co., resulted in a 30% schedule loss of use for the left leg. The second injury, covered by Travelers Indemnity Company of America, led to a total bilateral knee replacement. The cost of left knee surgery was initially apportioned 80% to Alliance and 20% to Travelers. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later ruled that this apportionment applied only to the *increase* in the schedule loss of use award, not the overall award. The WCLJ found an overall 50% loss of use, representing a 20% increase, and applied the apportionment to this increase, resulting in Alliance being responsible for 46% and Travelers for 4% of the overall award. Alliance appealed, arguing for apportionment of the overall award, but the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. The appellate court further affirmed the Board's decision, declining to reconsider the method of apportionment.

Workers' Compensation AppealSchedule Loss of UseKnee InjuryApportionmentInsurance Carrier LiabilityWCLJ DecisionBoard ReviewJudicial DiscretionLeft Leg InjuryLien
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 12,843 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