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 Stevenson v. Yellow Roadway Corp.

A tractor trailer operator employed by Yellow Roadway Corporation crashed and suffered a massive stroke, dying two days later. His widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, which the employer attempted to controvert. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the employer failed to timely controvert the claim, thereby barring their defenses regarding causation. Relying on the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), the Board established a causally related death. The employer appealed, challenging the application of the presumption and the finding of a causally related death. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding that the employer was precluded from raising defenses due to the untimely filing of the notice of controversy.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationPresumption of CompensabilityWorkers’ Compensation Law § 21Workers’ Compensation Law § 25Untimely ControversionStrokeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrington v. Hudson Valley Fruit Juice, Inc.

The claimant's decedent, a factory laborer, suffered an unwitnessed intracerebral hemorrhage at work and subsequently died. The employer controverted the claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A WCLJ initially closed the case for lack of prima facie medical evidence, but a subsequent WCLJ reopened and found sufficient medical evidence based on the presumption of compensability in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). The Workers’ Compensation Board then rescinded this decision, ruling that claimant's medical reports did not constitute prima facie evidence of a causal relationship. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in requiring prima facie medical evidence in this unwitnessed death case, compelling the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption. The Court also noted that the employer had not presented evidence to rebut this presumption. The decision of the Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntracerebral HemorrhageUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of CompensabilityCausal RelationshipPrima Facie Medical EvidenceBoard ErrorReversalRemittalDeath Benefits Claim
References
11
Case No. ADJ1038622
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

PAUL SOTEROPOULOS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the finding that the applicant, a firefighter, did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment for his testicular cancer. The Board found the agreed medical evaluator's opinion on the latency period provided substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant's hernia was a complication of non-industrial cancer treatment, thus controverting the presumption of compensability for hernias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPaul SoterepoulosLos Angeles County Fire DepartmentReconsiderationFirefighterRight Testicular CancerHerniaLabor Code Section 3212.1Presumption of CompensabilityLatency Period
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Booker v. Intermagnetics General Corp.

Claimant fainted at her workstation, suffering a traumatic head injury. She filed for workers' compensation, which the employer and carrier controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, applying the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption, and found the carrier's rebuttal evidence speculative. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's medical expert's opinion, attributing the collapse to metabolic acidosis from prior alcohol/substance abuse, was insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption, especially given evidence of 18 months of sobriety.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory PresumptionAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentEmployer LiabilityCarrier RebuttalMedical Expert TestimonyMetabolic Acidosis
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleischer v. McKenica Corp.

Paul Fleischer died in China in 1997, leading his widow and children to file for workers' compensation death benefits. Initial confusion arose regarding the responsible carrier, with National Union and Travelers Insurance Company both involved. Travelers initially disclaimed coverage but was later determined to be the employer's true carrier. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Travelers' notice of controversy untimely and applied a presumption of work-related death, a decision upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed, arguing the 25-day period for controverting the claim started later. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Travelers' notice of controversy was indeed untimely and that the presumption of causation was appropriately applied.

Workers' Compensation BoardDeath Benefits ClaimCarrier LiabilityTimeliness of NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 25Workers' Compensation Law § 21Presumption of CausationInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewEmployer Appeal
References
1
Case No. 528988
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Docking v. Lapp Insulators LLC

Claimant, a hazmat driver, sustained an unwitnessed fall at work in July 2017, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and memory loss of the incident. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 presumption of compensability applied, and the employer failed to rebut it. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the employer argued that the injury resulted from a preexisting cardiovascular condition, presenting an independent medical examination report. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption that the accident was work-related, giving appropriate deference to the Board's credibility determinations.

Accidental InjuryTraumatic Brain InjuryUnwitnessed FallPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceRebuttalMedical EvidenceCredibilityAppellate DecisionEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grapo v. City of Buffalo

A City of Buffalo maintenance worker collapsed and died while filling a pothole. His widow, the claimant, sought workers' compensation death benefits, which the employer, the City of Buffalo, controverted. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found the claimant entitled to a presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1) and awarded benefits. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, stating that the claimant failed to provide prima facie medical evidence of a causally related death. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's reversal, noting that the employer had presented evidence, including witness testimony and medical reports (death certificate, autopsy, and an expert's opinion), indicating the death was witnessed, explained by arteriosclerotic heart disease, and not work-related, thus overcoming the presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausally Related InjuryPresumption of CompensabilityArteriosclerotic Heart DiseaseAutopsy ReportCardiovascular Disease ExpertAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityWitness Testimony
References
4
Case No. CV-23-0298
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Gayle Leonard

Gayle Leonard, an alteration seamstress, filed a workers' compensation claim after contracting COVID-19 at work. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing it was not a causally-related injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim for occupationally contracted COVID-19. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that Leonard demonstrated specific exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace through interactions with a coworker who tested positive. The Board also concluded that Leonard was entitled to the presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21, which the carrier failed to rebut, having waived the right to an independent medical exam. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that contracting COVID-19 in the workplace can qualify as an unusual hazard and is compensable. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of a work-related injury due to specific exposure and upheld the application of the statutory presumption, concluding that a causal connection between the injury and employment was established.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryWorkplace ExposurePresumption of CompensabilityCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAlteration SeamstressOccupational Illness
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrett v. Transport System of Western New York, Inc.

Decedent, a 58-year-old long-distance truck driver, was found dead in his truck in Pennsylvania. An autopsy and toxicological analysis yielded no clear cause of death. His widow filed a claim for death benefits, which the employer's carrier controverted, arguing no causal relationship to employment based on a medical consultant's report. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed compensability, citing the presumption that unwitnessed deaths occurring in the course of employment arise out of employment, which the carrier failed to rebut with substantial evidence. The employer and carrier appealed this decision, but the court affirmed the Board's determination.

Workers' CompensationUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of Arising Out of EmploymentCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSudden Death SyndromeRebuttal of PresumptionLong-Distance Truck DriverDeath BenefitsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03234 [238 AD3d 1454]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Matter of Ramales v. Frank & Nino's Pizza Corp.

Felipe Zamora Ramales, a pizzeria kitchen assistant, suffered severe burns after falling down stairs while attempting to move a large pot of hot tomato sauce. His employer and its carrier controverted his workers' compensation claim, arguing intoxication was the sole cause of the accident and that he deviated from the scope of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's disallowance, establishing the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the carrier failed to rebut the presumption that intoxication was not the sole cause and that claimant's actions did not constitute a deviation from employment sufficient to preclude benefits.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseScope of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityAppellate ReviewBurn InjuryPizzeria WorkerBlood Alcohol ContentCredibility AssessmentHearsay Evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 726 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