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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01702 [203 AD3d 1618]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

Szymkowiak v. New York Power Auth.

Plaintiff Joseph Szymkowiak initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against New York Power Authority for workplace injuries sustained in two accidents. Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims or limit damages, specifically regarding a second accident. The Supreme Court partially granted the motion but denied dismissal for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and post-concussion syndrome damages. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, ruling that claims for post-concussion syndrome and a concussion condition were barred by collateral estoppel due to prior Workers' Compensation Board findings. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and allowed claims for headaches and the actual concussion to proceed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkplace AccidentPost-concussion SyndromeConcussion InjuryAppellate ReviewElevation-related RiskComparative FaultProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06827 [175 AD3d 1728]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Fox v. Altmar-Parish-Williamstown Cent. Sch. Dist.

The claimant, Michelle E. (Nash) Fox, sustained a work-related injury in 2012, which was initially established for neck and hip injuries. In November 2016, she sought to amend her claim to include a causally-related head injury with concussion, which was granted by the WCLJ and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer and carrier appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the medical evidence presented by the claimant's experts to establish a causal connection between the 2012 incident and the 2016 complaints was speculative. The experts had not reviewed the claimant's prior medical records, which included a history of dizziness and depression that could mimic post-concussion symptoms. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryConcussionCausationMedical EvidencePrior Medical HistoryPosttraumatic HeadachesDizzinessFatigueAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ7509842
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

Latrisha Majors vs. Palmdale School District, York Insurance Services Group

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original award to include an injury to the applicant's head, in addition to her back. However, they affirmed the finding of $0\%$ permanent disability and no need for further medical treatment. This decision relied on the applicant's primary treating physician's opinion, deeming it more persuasive and giving significant weight to the WCJ's credibility finding of the applicant. The amendment to include the head injury was based on the WCJ's report acknowledging a concussion, even if subjective complaints of headaches were not found credible.

Latrisha MajorsPalmdale School DistrictYork Insurance ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardspecial education substituteindustrial injuryback injurypermanent disabilitymedical treatment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1981

Claim of Grimaldi v. Shop Rite Big V

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier against a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that an 18-year-old stock clerk, who fell and sustained a concussion, a cut chin, and two broken teeth after punching out and speaking with his supervisor, suffered an accidental injury in the course of his employment. The employer contended the fall was idiopathic and not causally related to employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 that an injury occurring in the course of employment also arises out of employment, especially when an unexplained fall happens in the presence of witnesses. The court found no substantial evidence to rebut this presumption.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionIdiopathic FallSyncope EpisodeEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier AppealMedical Causation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McMicking v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying occupational disease and death benefits to the claimant's decedent. The decedent, a former motorcycle policeman, suffered a cerebral concussion and fractures in 1979, and two heart attacks in 1980 and 1981, ultimately leading to his death. While the claimant's doctor argued a causal link between the decedent's stressful employment and coronary artery disease, the employer's cardiologist found no connection. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed an initial award, concluding that the decedent's work did not involve undue physical or emotional stress, a finding that was affirmed on appeal given the Board's authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions.

Occupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsCausally Related DisabilityCoronary Artery DiseaseHeart AttackPolice EmploymentWork-Related StressConflicting Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tobin v. Steisel

The dissenting opinion concerns an appeal by a stationary fireman regarding the denial of his accidental disability retirement application by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, despite being granted ordinary disability. The petitioner claimed injuries, including hearing loss and post-concussion syndrome, following an explosion, with various doctors supporting a causal link. However, the medical board, relying on a psychiatrist's report, concluded the accident was merely a precipitating, not causal, event. The dissenting judge argues this distinction is semantic and unjust, particularly given the absence of any pre-existing medical conditions. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the Special Term's judgment and remanding the case for further clarification of the determination.

Accidental Disability RetirementOrdinary Disability RetirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemCausation MedicalPost-Concussion SyndromeAcoustic TraumaTraumatic NeurosisArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewMedical Board Opinion
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03164
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Tineo v. M D R J LLC

Juan Fernandez Tineo, a construction worker, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on the job, including his left index finger and post-concussion headaches. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his claim, finding attachment to the labor market and directing ongoing awards. The employer, M D R J LLC, and its carrier sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) but their application was denied due to incomplete submission, specifically failing to specify when objections were interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's discretion to deny review for procedural non-compliance, especially when a party is represented by counsel.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewRegulatory ComplianceApplication for ReviewAdministrative ProcedureProcedural DenialBoard DiscretionInjured WorkerLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial Disability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ballou v. Southworth-Milton, Inc.

Claimant, a mechanic for 26 years, suffered second-degree burns and other injuries in February 2010. He returned to work in May 2010 with restrictions but felt unsafe due to concentration and memory problems from a post-concussion syndrome diagnosis. He retired the same month, seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board established the claim and awarded continuing benefits, finding claimant's retirement was involuntary due to his disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that his disability contributed to his retirement, and found no violation of *Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc.* regarding the inference of reduced earnings due to disability.

Workers' CompensationInvoluntary RetirementLabor Market WithdrawalPost-Concussion SyndromeDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausationReduced EarningsMedical Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wittkopp v. ADF Construction Corp.

John F. Wittkopp was injured after falling from a roof during construction work, claiming no safety devices were provided. The Supreme Court initially denied partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, citing a factual dispute about his location. However, the appellate court reversed this, stating plaintiff's activity was incidental to construction and that he lacked safety equipment. The court rejected arguments about an unwitnessed accident and inconsistent testimony due to plaintiff's concussion. The defendant's lack of opportunity to depose the supervisor was also dismissed, as the supervisor's affidavit was already submitted. Consequently, the appellate court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding no material issues of fact regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240 (1)Partial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety device absenceConcussion sequelaePlaintiff credibilityThird-party defendant liabilityMotion practice
References
7
Case No. CV-24-1581
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of John Foster

Claimant John Foster was injured in May 2020, and the carrier accepted liability for his facial injuries. In 2023, Foster sought treatment for new conditions, including a traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, which he linked to the original accident. The carrier argued the claim for these new conditions was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28, but the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding that initial medical records provided sufficient notice of a claim within the two-year period, documenting symptoms like lightheadedness and head pain immediately after the accident. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the two-year limitation does not preclude amending a timely claim to include consequential injuries.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-concussion SyndromeConsequential InjuriesMedical RecordsNotice RequirementsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 20 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