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. ADJ488924 (SDO 0329999), ADJ226519 (SDO 0302236), ADJ2353553 (SDO 0250184), ADJ4021935 (SDO 0269434)
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

Craig Stevens vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a previous order denying benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). Applicant Craig Stevens sought SIBTF benefits for a claimed subsequent cumulative trauma injury to his neck ending April 2, 2009, with a compensable consequence injury to his right shoulder and low back. The WCAB found the medical evidence regarding the causation, date of injury, and permanent disability ratings for the alleged subsequent injuries, as well as prior injuries, to be insufficient and inconsistent. The case was returned to the trial level for further development of the record, including obtaining new medical opinions to clarify the various injuries and establish SIBTF eligibility thresholds.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTF eligibilitycumulative trauma injurycompensable consequence injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentmedical evidencecausationfurther development of the recordLabor Code section 4751
References
9
Case No. ADJ1916556 (RIV 0038645) ADJ2708670 (ANA 0358650)
Regular
Nov 15, 2013

GHEORGHE TOMA vs. BASIC ELECTRIC, INC.; SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) successfully petitioned for reconsideration, overturning a previous finding that the applicant was eligible for SIBTF benefits. The Board determined that the applicant did not qualify because the WCJ improperly considered disability arising from the natural progression of a prior injury after a subsequent injury. SIBTF liability is based solely on the disability level at the time of the subsequent injury, which was 32% in this case. Consequently, the applicant was found not qualified for SIBTF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751permanent disabilitycumulative traumaspecific injuryPetition to ReopenAgreed Medical Examinerapportionmentnew and further disabilityHaendiges v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Eddy v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority

Two employees of the Regional Transit Service sustained injuries in July 1994 while playing on an employer-sponsored softball team. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that these injuries were causally related to their employment, leading the employer to appeal the decisions. The court evaluated whether the employer "sponsored" the team through overt encouragement and control, as stipulated by Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). Evidence presented, including employer-funded uniforms with logos, promotional materials displayed at the workplace, and significant managerial control over the Sunshine Fund which financed the team, supported the finding of sufficient employer sponsorship. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and entitled the claimants to workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuriesOff-duty Athletic EventEmployer SponsorshipEmployee MoraleSoftball TeamCausally Related DisabilitiesAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardScope of Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tucci v. Kimball

Claimant, a nursery school teacher, sustained a work-related lower back injury in December 1974, leading to permanent partial disability and workers’ compensation benefits. Following a second laminectomy in 1993, she developed worsening urinary incontinence. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a finding that claimant was totally disabled due to this condition, deeming it a consequence of her original work-related injury. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that while conflicting medical opinions existed, the neurologist’s testimony provided substantial evidence to support the finding of total disability stemming from the 1974 injury.

work-related injurylower back injuryurinary incontinencepermanent partial disabilitytotal disabilitylaminectomymedical opinionsneurologist testimonysubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1999

Giordano v. Toys R Us, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff's case relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. However, the appellate court found that the "exclusive control" element of the doctrine was not satisfied. Evidence suggested that the plaintiff or co-workers could have disturbed the wooden board that fell and caused the injury. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants.

Personal InjuryRes Ipsa LoquiturNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive ControlPremises LiabilityStockroom SafetyFalling DebrisCausation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lewis v. Toring Taxi Co.

This memorandum affirms the Appellate Division's order concerning a claimant's injury. The central issue examined was whether the claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment, which the board had previously determined in the negative as a question of fact. The court found no legal basis to overturn this determination, stating that substantial evidence supported the board's finding, referencing *Matter of McGrinder v Sullivan*. Consequently, the court upheld the board's decision.

Employment InjuryQuestion of Fact ReviewSubstantial Evidence DoctrineAppellate Division AffirmanceCourse of Employment DeterminationAdministrative Board DecisionJudicial ConcurrenceLegal Memorandum
References
1
Case No. 2009 NY Slip Op 32365(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2009

Spence v. Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II, LLC

This case concerns an action for personal injuries where the plaintiff, an employee of a third-party defendant, allegedly sustained injuries at a construction site due to a rut in the ground. The Supreme Court initially denied motions for summary judgment from both the third-party defendant and the defendants/third-party plaintiffs. Upon appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision. The court granted the defendants/third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence, were inapplicable. Consequently, the third-party defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint was also granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeCommon-Law NegligenceConstruction Site AccidentElevation-Related RiskContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2008

Soto v. Akam Associates, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The core issue revolves around the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, specifically sections 11 and 29(6), which bar employees receiving compensation benefits from suing their employers for sustained injuries. These provisions also extend to special employers. The key determinant for a special employment arrangement is who controls and directs the employee's work, alongside factors like wage payment and equipment provision. The court found that the defendant failed to prove a prima facie case for special employment, as the plaintiff's direct employer, 300 E. 74th Owners Corp., supervised the plaintiff, paid wages, and furnished equipment. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion was affirmed.

Personal injuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary judgmentSpecial employmentEmployer liabilityExclusivity provisionsAppellate reviewMotion deniedControl testEmployment relationship
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 16,961 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