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
Jun 10, 2005

Claim of Cucci v. Rexer's Tang Soo Do Karate Academy

Claimant sustained a severe neck laceration in December 2001 while at work, resulting in a significant scar. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied an award for facial disfigurement, stating the scar was below the jaw. The Workers’ Compensation Board panel modified this, granting a $10,000 award, finding the scar fell within the compensable region under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (t) (2). The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board failed to address the impact of the disfigurement on claimant's present or future earning capacity, a statutory requirement for such an award. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, citing the absence of findings or inferences regarding impaired earning capacity.

Facial DisfigurementSerious DisfigurementEarning CapacityWorkers' Compensation Law § 15Scar InjuryAppellate ReviewRemittalStatutory InterpretationCompensable InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Piazza v. George Campbell Painting Co.

The case involves the appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a decedent's widow. The decedent sustained fatal injuries from electrocution while working for the employer. The Board initially awarded death benefits, temporary total disability, and facial disfigurement, but later rescinded the disability award, upholding the disfigurement. The employer appealed, arguing the disfigurement award was improper without a permanent partial disability finding. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the evidence of grave injuries supported total, not partial, disability, making the disfigurement award irrational. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationFacial DisfigurementTemporary Total DisabilityDeath BenefitsConcurrent AwardsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMedical EvidenceAccidentElectrocution
References
4
Case No. Nos. 27-29
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2021

The People v. Kenneth Slade , The People v. Kieth Brooks, The People v. Charo N. Allen

This opinion addresses three appeals consolidated to determine the facial sufficiency of accusatory instruments when a translator assists witnesses with limited-English proficiency. Justice Garcia, writing for the majority of the New York Court of Appeals, affirmed in one case and reversed in two, generally holding that an accusatory instrument is facially sufficient even if a translator was used, as long as it does not facially indicate a defect or misinterpretation. The Court found that a translator acts as a language conduit and does not create an additional layer of hearsay for pleading purposes, and that the CPL does not mandate a certificate of translation. Dissenting opinions by Justices Rivera and Wilson argued for clearer rules requiring documentation of translator qualifications and accuracy to ensure the reliability and non-hearsay nature of such instruments, emphasizing the importance of these procedural safeguards, especially given the high rate of plea bargains in misdemeanor cases.

Accusatory Instrument SufficiencyLimited English ProficiencyTranslator RoleHearsay RuleSpeedy Trial MotionFacial SufficiencyMisdemeanor ComplaintsSupporting DepositionsCriminal Procedure LawCPL 30.30
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1996

Chambers v. City of Ogdensburg

The State Insurance Fund appealed an order from St. Lawrence County Supreme Court denying its request for a full lien on the settlement proceeds received by Timothy J. Cooke, a 12-year-old paperboy. Cooke had received $14,000 from the Fund for permanent facial scars sustained after being struck by a police car, and subsequently settled a third-party personal injury action. The Supreme Court ruled, based on Dietrich v Kemper Ins. Co., that the settlement funds for facial scars constituted compensation for basic economic loss and were therefore exempt from a Workers’ Compensation Law lien. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Fund's appeal timely and agreeing that the compensation for facial disfigurement was equivalent to basic economic loss. Additionally, the court rejected the Fund's argument for a partial lien against amounts exceeding a statutory no-fault cap, determining the lump-sum payment remained within monthly limits when distributed over 36 months.

Workers' CompensationLien EnforcementThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryFacial ScarsNo-Fault BenefitsBasic Economic LossStatutory InterpretationAppellate AffirmationState Insurance Fund
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Graham

This case addresses whether plaintiff Cedric Fleming's facial injuries, specifically scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid, constitute a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, qualifying as a "grave injury." Fleming, an employee of Pinstripes Garment Services, LLC, sustained these injuries in a collision with a school bus. He sued Evergreen Bus Service, Inc., and its driver, who then initiated a third-party action against Pinstripes for indemnity/contribution, claiming Fleming's injuries were "grave." Supreme Court denied Pinstripes' summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division affirmed, finding factual questions. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, establishing a standard for "severe facial disfigurement" which requires the injury to greatly alter the face's appearance and be regarded as "abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly" by a reasonable person. Applying this standard, the Court found that Fleming's injuries, despite numerous scars and some permanency, did not meet the "severe" disfigurement threshold, thereby granting Pinstripes' motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementPermanent InjurySevere InjuryThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1992

Claim of Clements v. Oneida Ltd.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed April 15, 1992, which found that the claimant did not suffer a serious facial disfigurement. The Board's factual determination, supported by a medical examination indicating no facial disfigurement and ongoing dental care for the injury, was upheld. The court affirmed the decision, finding no merit in the claimant's arguments.

Facial DisfigurementWorkers' CompensationMedical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealSubstantial EvidenceDental CareInjuryClaimantAffirmed Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1982

Claim of Munkelwitz v. New York Telephone Co.

The employer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that granted disability benefits to the claimant for a period in early 1980. The employer contended there was no record support for the claimant's inability to work during that time. However, medical testimony showed the claimant's knee had limited flexibility, pain, and swelling. The claimant also testified to severe pain, swelling without elevation, and an inability to drive or use public transport to work. This evidence was found to provide ample support for the Board's finding of the claimant's work disability due to a knee injury. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed.

Disability BenefitsKnee InjuryMedical TestimonyInability to WorkAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation AppealPain and Swelling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wildman

This case addresses the constitutionality of Administrative Code § 10-118 (b) of the City of New York, which prohibits transporting building materials without proof of ownership. Defendant challenged the statute, arguing the complaint was facially insufficient and that the statute violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption and being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Judge Michael Gerstein denied all of defendant's motions. The court found the complaint facially sufficient and determined that the statute does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and clear standards for enforcement, rationally deterring theft and vandalism.

ConstitutionalityDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineIrrebuttable PresumptionAdministrative CodeStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawFacial InsufficiencyProof of Ownership
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. Nygren Dahly Co.

This appeal concerns an order from Supreme Court, Monroe County, which initially denied a third-party defendant's (Flower City Printing, Inc.) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee of Flower City, sustained scalp and facial lacerations from a drill press. Flower City sought to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court modified the original order. It affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding an acquired brain injury but granted summary judgment dismissing claims based on permanent and severe facial disfigurement, concluding the plaintiff's scarring did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentFacial DisfigurementBrain InjuryThird-Party ComplaintAppealMonroe CountyAppellate DivisionMedical Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dietrick v. Kemper Insurance

This declaratory judgment action addresses whether a workers' compensation carrier has a valid lien on third-party settlement proceeds for payments made for permanent partial disability and serious facial disfigurement. The plaintiff, injured in an automobile accident during employment, received workers' compensation benefits and settled a third-party claim. The defendant carrier asserted a lien on the settlement, which the plaintiff contested, arguing these payments constituted first-party benefits upon which no lien could exist. The Special Term ruled in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that payments for permanent partial disability and serious facial disfigurement are not first-party benefits under the No-Fault Insurance Law, and therefore, the carrier has a valid lien.

Workers' Compensation LawDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance LienThird-Party ActionNo-Fault Insurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss AwardsSerious Facial DisfigurementBasic Economic Loss
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 76 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