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 Cyr v. Bero Construction Corp.

The case concerned an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a truck driver, Mr. Cyr, who died in 1975 from an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. The Board had affirmed that the aneurysm and its rupture were causally related to an industrial accident Mr. Cyr suffered in 1965. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the medical opinion supporting causal relation, specifically from Dr. Rizzuto, lacked sufficient certainty. The court, referencing legal precedents like Matott v Ward, clarified that expert medical testimony must signify a probability supported by a rational basis, not necessarily 'reasonable medical certainty.' Upon reviewing Dr. Rizzuto's testimony, the court found it met this standard, confirming the causal relationship, and thus affirmed the Board's decisions.

Aortic AneurysmCausal RelationIndustrial AccidentDeath Benefits ClaimExpert Medical TestimonyMedical Certainty StandardWorkers' Compensation AppealsProbative ForceMedical Opinion ProbabilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. VNO 0539404
Regular
Apr 03, 2008

DUANNA CARLISLE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a widow's claim for death benefits after her police officer husband died from a ruptured aortic aneurysm. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the weekly payment rate for death benefits. While affirming the total benefit amount and the date of injury, the Board amended the award to reflect a higher weekly payment rate of $840.00, consistent with current statutory guidelines for temporary total disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsRuptured Aortic AneurysmHypertensionPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryDate of DeathLabor Code Section 4702Temporary Total Disability Indemnity
References
2
Case No. ADJ4225526 (GOL 0092072)
Regular
Apr 20, 2017

JESUS ARROYO vs. JOHN CRAVENS PLASTERING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Jesus Arroyo's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Medical evidence from Dr. Markovitz established that Arroyo suffered a total and permanent disability resulting from industrial injuries, including an aortic aneurysm repair and subsequent strokes. The Board found Dr. Markovitz's opinions constituted substantial medical evidence, despite conflicting defense opinions, and affirmed that all necessary medical care and permanent disability were industrially caused.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus ArroyoJohn Cravens PlasteringState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerGerald Markovitzechocardiogramaortic root dilationexpanding aortic aneurysm
References
0
Case No. ADJ526691 (LBO 0329338) MF ADJ3636578 (VNO 0535001)
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

JITKA VAN DYNE-PARMET vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ decision that awarded 91% permanent disability for injuries to her neck, shoulders, fibromyalgia, and psychological system, but denied injury to her central nervous system (aneurysm). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case for further development of the medical record. This is primarily due to the ambiguity in a medical report regarding the industrial causation of the applicant's carotid aneurysm, which the Board found could be reasonably probable given the documented trauma. The Board also noted the WCJ's clerical error regarding the amount of permanent disability indemnity awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFibromyalgiaCarotid AneurysmAgreed Medical ExaminersApportionmentPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentReconsiderationPetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupationally related disease contributed to the decedent's death. The decedent had bronchitis, an occupational disease, and also aortic stenosis, which caused his death. The key issue was whether the bronchitis contributed to his death by preventing cardiac surgery that would have prolonged his life. Expert medical testimony indicated that the bronchitis made him ineligible for the necessary aortic valve replacement surgery. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the bronchitis prevented life-prolonging surgery and affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBronchitisAortic StenosisMedical TestimonyCausationSurgical ContraindicationLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Richman v. NYS Unified Court System

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant suffered an unwitnessed injury at work, leading to a presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The employer attempted to overcome this presumption with an expert's opinion suggesting the ruptured aneurysm was unrelated to employment. However, the Board found the expert's testimony not credible, particularly due to evasiveness regarding the role of work-induced stress and high blood pressure in the aneurysm's rupture. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's conclusion, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of compensability.

Workers' CompensationAneurysmWork StressPresumption of CompensabilityExpert CredibilityUnwitnessed InjuryBlood PressureMedical OpinionBoard DecisionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07921 [132 AD3d 602]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

Matter of Leon T. v. Marie J.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Family Court, New York County, which granted the father's petition for expanded and overnight visitation with his child. The court found a sound and substantial basis in the record to modify the prior visitation order, citing a change of circumstances. These circumstances included the mother's failure to comply with the agreed visitation schedule, the father's relocation to Pennsylvania, and the teenaged child's strong desire to spend more time and stay overnight at her father's new home. A social worker's inspection confirmed the father's home was safe and appropriate for overnight visitation, supporting the decision that expanded visitation was in the child's best interest.

Child visitationParental rightsFamily lawBest interests of childCustody modificationAppellate reviewChild's preferenceSocial worker reportChange of circumstancesVisitation order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1978

Coskey v. Cornell University

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for a heart aneurysm, contending it was caused by being struck by a beer can in 1967 while working for Cornell University. The Workers’ Compensation Board twice disallowed the claim, primarily citing a lack of causal relation based on medical testimony and the time interval between the injury and symptom onset. However, the appellate court found that all three medical experts—Dr. Munchmeyer, Dr. Gensini, and Dr. Huntington—supported a causal link between the trauma and the aneurysm. The court concluded the board's decision lacked substantial medical evidence and failed to make a finding on whether the claimant was actually struck in the chest. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the case remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationMedical TestimonyHeart AneurysmTraumaAppellate ReviewRemittalExpert Medical OpinionBoard DecisionEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. 17 NY3d 238
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Jarrod Brown

Judge Read's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of CPL 440.46, as amended by Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2011. The majority expanded resentencing eligibility to include parolees due to a name change from 'Department of Correctional Services' to 'Department of Corrections and Community Supervision'. Read contends that this amendment was merely a technical change reflecting an agency merger, not a substantive legislative intent to broaden resentencing relief, which should remain limited to incarcerated persons as per the original 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The dissent emphasizes that statutory text should be interpreted within its context, highlighting that the 2011 amendment was part of an article VII budget bill for restructuring and technical corrections, not substantive law changes. Therefore, Read believes the legislature did not intend to expand the ameliorative sweep of the provision.

Resentencing EligibilityCPL 440.46Drug Law Reform ActParoleesIncarcerated PersonsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentChapter 62 Laws of 2011Technical AmendmentSubstantive Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 88 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