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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanDermark v. Frontier Insurance

In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer and its carrier challenged two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's permanent total disability. The claimant sustained a back injury in 1998 and was initially found to have a permanent partial disability. However, the Board later modified the award, concluding the claimant had a permanent total disability after August 2004, a finding supported by the testimony of her treating orthopedic surgeon despite conflicting medical evidence. The employer also contested the denial of their applications for reconsideration and/or full Board review, arguing insufficient evidence and an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and finding no arbitrary or capricious action in denying reconsideration, as no new evidence was presented.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsBoard's DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asberry v. Aetna Insurance Co.

Annie Mae Asberry, an employee, sued Aetna Insurance Company for worker's compensation benefits after a fall at work resulted in a knee injury. A jury found temporary total loss of use of her leg from September 1977 to March 1978, and a 55% permanent partial loss thereafter. Asberry appealed the jury's findings, arguing they were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, citing conflicting medical testimonies from Dr. Gunn and Dr. Mahon. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury was within its province to resolve conflicting evidence and the findings were not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court also addressed and overruled a point of error regarding the admissibility of evidence about refused employment, finding it permissible due to the appellant's own testimony.

Worker's CompensationKnee InjuryPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceJury VerdictPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Casucci v. Community Carting Co.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding death benefits for the decedent, husband of the claimant, who died from a coronary artery thrombosis. Initially, the Board denied benefits, but an appeal led to reversal and remittal for further evidence on the decedent's work activities, which included heavy lifting. Despite conflicting medical testimony, the Board found the decedent's work efforts contributed to his death, affirming an award of death benefits. Appellants challenged this finding, arguing a lack of evidence of strenuous effort on the death date. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board could reasonably infer facts, and the medical conflict was a matter for the Board's resolution, supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCoronary Artery ThrombosisMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCausationScope of Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Boyuk v. Triad Retail Media

Claimant, an office manager, sought workers' compensation benefits for asthma allegedly contracted on November 3, 2014, due to exposure to aromatherapy fragrances at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, finding a causally-related occupational injury. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant did not sustain a causally-related respiratory injury. Medical evidence presented conflicting views: Dr. Evelyn Tolston diagnosed causally related occupational asthma, while Dr. Monroe Karetzky found no objective pulmonary disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its resolution of conflicting medical evidence and evaluation of witness credibility, and concluding that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation AppealOccupational InjuryAsthma ClaimCausally Related InjuryMedical Evidence ConflictIndependent Medical ExaminationRespiratory ConditionFragrance ExposureBoard Decision AffirmedSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co.

This is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed December 1, 1994, which ruled that the claimant had no further causally related disability subsequent to October 23, 1989. The claimant was injured in 1986 and received benefits until 1989, but sought additional compensation for persistent back pain. The Board dismissed the claim, finding insufficient credible evidence of causality. Conflicting medical testimonies from physicians Richard Dellaporta, Sewall Miller, and Harry Cole were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that resolving conflicts in medical testimony is within the Board's province and that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. The claimant's contention regarding the presumption of causal relationship under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (5) was also rejected, as countervailing substantial evidence was presented.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceAppellate ReviewPresumption of CausalityWorkers' Compensation Law § 21(5)Back Pain InjuryBoard Decision AffirmationExpert Witnesses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cantelmo v. New York State Comptroller

The petitioner, a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, applied for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits, including World Trade Center accidental disability benefits, following diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied the applications, concluding the petitioner was not permanently disabled. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with the petitioner's experts diagnosing permanent PTSD disability and the Retirement System's psychiatrist diagnosing a treatable major depressive disorder. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, stating that the Comptroller has the authority to resolve conflicts in medical evidence and that the Retirement System's expert provided a rational and fact-based opinion, thus supporting the determination with substantial evidence.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice OfficerPTSDWorld Trade Center AttackComptroller's DeterminationMedical Evidence ConflictPermanent IncapacityPsychiatric EvaluationArticle 78 ProceedingNew York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System
References
6
Case No. 13-22-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2023

In Re Kirby Offshore Marine Operating LLC v. the State of Texas

Relator Kirby Offshore Marine Operating, LLC (Kirby) sought a writ of mandamus against the trial court, asserting that it abused its discretion by granting a new trial in favor of real party in interest Southern Recycling, LLC (Southern). The underlying dispute arose from Kirby's sale of a tank barge to Southern for scrap. The barge caught fire during shipbreaking, causing personal injury and death to employees. After settling personal injury claims, Kirby and Southern litigated breach of contract and warranty claims, with a jury awarding damages to Kirby but none to Southern. The trial court initially entered a take-nothing judgment but later granted Southern's motion for a new trial, citing an irreconcilable conflict in the jury's verdict and insufficient evidence for zero damages. The appellate court reviewed the new trial order and found no irreconcilable conflict in the jury's findings. It also determined that the jury's verdict of zero damages for Southern was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, considering evidence of Southern's and its subsidiary ISL's own failures to comply with safety procedures and contract terms. The appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its new trial order.

MandamusNew TrialJury VerdictBreach of WarrantyProximate CauseSufficiency of EvidenceShipbreaking AccidentHazardous MaterialsTexas Court of AppealsContract Dispute
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

The Chief Justice dissents from the Court’s decision not to reconsider a panel’s opinion en banc, arguing that the panel opinion is contrary to established Texas law concerning retaliatory discharge under article 8307c of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that the "after-acquired evidence defense" is an unprecedented affirmative defense that lacks statutory or common law basis in Texas, and it conflicts with the principle that an employee can recover even if retaliation is not the sole reason for discharge. Furthermore, the defense is criticized for being based on the false premise that an employee cannot be injured by an illegal discharge if they would not have been hired initially due to a falsified application. The dissent also argues that the defense is inherently speculative and cannot be proven as a matter of law, and that it encourages employers to engage in unlawful behavior. Finally, it suggests that equitable goals can be met through existing legal mechanisms like reducing damages or counterclaims for fraud.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary JudgmentTexas LawEmployment LawAffirmative DefenseEquitable ReliefCausationDamages
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 15,836 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