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 Levitsky v. Garden Time, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related right shoulder injury in 2009. The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) awarded schedule loss of use (SLU) but apportioned the award, attributing most of the disability to preexisting degenerative arthritis and a 1981 injury, and only 10% to the 2009 injury. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that apportionment was improper. The court reasoned that a preexisting condition, even if symptomatic, does not warrant apportionment unless it was disabling in a compensation sense before the current injury. Since the claimant remained fully employed and capable of performing duties despite prior shoulder issues, the prior conditions were not considered disabling. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the full 60% SLU award for the 2009 injury.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseApportionmentPreexisting ConditionDegenerative ArthritisShoulder InjuryDisabilitySymptomaticAppellate ReviewReversed
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2013

Claim of Crane v. Dalrymple Gravel & Contracting Holding

The claimant successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a left shoulder injury in 2004, resulting in a permanent partial disability. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the claimant's preexisting conditions of hypertension and degenerative disc disease. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this application, concluding that the carrier failed to demonstrate that these preexisting conditions hindered the claimant's job potential. Upon appeal, the decision of the Board was affirmed, as substantial evidence, including the claimant’s testimony and medical reports, supported the finding that her preexisting conditions did not affect her ability to work.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Disability FundReimbursementPreexisting ConditionsHypertensionDegenerative Disc DiseaseEmployabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 524823
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2019

Matter of Napoli v. Edison

John Napoli, a mechanic, injured both shoulders in a 2003 work accident at the World Trade Center site. He was initially awarded a 20% schedule loss of use (SLU) for each shoulder. In 2012, his condition changed, and liability was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an additional 45% SLU for each shoulder, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this finding after an evaluation by an impartial specialist and crediting an independent medical examiner. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's finding that the additional deterioration in the condition of his shoulders was not causally related to the underlying accident was supported by substantial medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationImpartial SpecialistReopened CasesAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. ADJ11496459
Regular
Dec 11, 2019

ALEXANDER VAZQUEZ vs. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his right shoulder. The Board agreed that lifting a vacuum cleaner at work aggravated a pre-existing shoulder condition, satisfying the AOE/COE requirement. They affirmed the administrative law judge's reliance on the qualified medical examiner's report, despite minor discrepancies in the applicant's description of the lifting activity. The decision clarifies that industrial aggravation of a pre-existing condition constitutes a compensable injury.

AOE/COEFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Examiner (QME)apportionmentindustrial aggravationpre-existing conditionsubstantial evidencemechanism of injuryWCJ
References
6
Case No. ADJ4111589, ADJ2809505, ADJ4372783, ADJ1391390, ADJ2081394, ADJ8992669
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

GUILLERMO CORNEJO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

This case involves a worker who sustained multiple admitted industrial injuries to his right foot, back, right thigh, psyche, right lower extremity, and hands. The applicant alleged a subsequent left shoulder condition arose as a compensable consequence of these prior injuries due to a fall. Initially, an administrative law judge found the fall was not industrial, ruling the applicant merely tripped. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that medical evidence established the applicant's admitted industrial injuries caused weakness in his right lower extremity and balance issues, which contributed to his fall. Therefore, the Board reversed the prior ruling, determining the left shoulder condition was a compensable consequence of the original industrial injuries.

compensable consequenceadmitted industrial injuriesleft shoulder conditionright footright lower extremitybalanceweaknessfallL4-L5 fusionradiculopathy
References
4
Case No. 524328
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Murrah v. Jain Irrigation, Inc.

Claimant Steven Murrah sustained a work-related injury to his right shoulder in 2010 while working for Jain Irrigation, Inc., leading to workers' compensation benefits. In 2014, while working for a different employer, he jarred his right shoulder again. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found ulnar neuritis and cubital tunnel syndrome causally related to the 2010 incident. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this, finding no causal relation for ulnar neuritis but affirming and amending the 2010 claim to include right cubital tunnel syndrome. Jain Irrigation and its carrier appealed, arguing that ulnar neuritis and cubital tunnel syndrome are the same condition and that the issue was not properly preserved. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, declining to take judicial notice of the conditions' synonymity due to conflicting record evidence and deferring to the Board's resolution of medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationRight Shoulder InjuryRotator CuffUlnar NeuritisCubital Tunnel SyndromeCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewJudicial NoticeWork-Related Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dizenzo v. Henderson & Johnson

Claimant slipped and fell on ice while working in January 2011, establishing a workers’ compensation claim for injuries to his right wrist, right shoulder, and left knee. Subsequently, claimant sought to include neck and back injuries, submitting a report from a treating physician suggesting the fall may have exacerbated existing degenerative conditions. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board both found that claimant failed to establish a causal relationship for these additional injuries. The physicians could not conclusively establish a link, noting no acute injury evidence and the absence of initial complaints regarding these areas. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical OpinionDegenerative ConditionExacerbationBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
4
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Rebecca Richman

Rebecca Richman appealed from three decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board, including denials of her claim for a causally-related work injury and reconsideration. She asserted a right shoulder injury from a fall at work, but delayed seeking medical treatment for 19 months. The Board reversed a WCLJ's decision, finding insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal connection between her injury and employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that Richman failed to meet her burden of proof with competent medical evidence. The court highlighted the treating physician's lack of specificity regarding how the fall caused or exacerbated her diagnosed conditions, which included osteoarthritis and degenerative changes.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuryShoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionClaimant Burden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentPre-existing Conditions
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2004

Claim of Senecal v. Allied Bendix

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 1991, leading to surgery in 1992 and retirement in 1995. In 2002, he sought workers' compensation benefits for a consequential right shoulder injury, claiming it resulted from favoring his left shoulder. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established a causally related consequential injury, a Board panel reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, finding substantial evidence that the right shoulder condition, which manifested 10-11 years post-initial injury and 7 years post-retirement, was consistent with natural aging and not causally related to the prior work injury.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryRight Shoulder PainLeft Shoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceDegenerative ChangesSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,522 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