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
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. ADJ1088522 (RIV 0015524)
Regular
Jan 03, 2013

SAMANTHA VAN DUINHOVEN vs. SPA HOTEL & CASINO, CALIFORNIA CASUALTY, Administered by GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA

This case involved an applicant who claimed industrial injury to her neck, back, left shoulder, psyche, and associated chronic pain syndrome, resulting in a finding of permanent total disability. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the medical evidence did not support injury to the low back or a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome. The Appeals Board reversed the findings on the low back and chronic pain syndrome, finding no substantial evidence to support them. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability award was amended to 70%, based on ratings for her neck, left shoulder, and psyche.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical Record ReviewIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability Indemnity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hare v. Champion International

The claimant, a former laborer and millwright, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision ruling he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market, despite sustaining multiple work-related injuries, including head, neck, and back trauma. His employment ended in 1999 due to a mill sale, with prior findings attributing his unemployment to economic conditions. Following further hearings and medical examinations, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined he had a moderate, permanent partial disability not prohibiting employment, and lacked labor market attachment. The Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments for total disability and upholding the finding that he had not sought work since December 2000, thus failing to demonstrate the requisite attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEconomic ConditionsUnemploymentDisability BenefitsJudicial AffirmationConflicting Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Torres v. Kaufman's Bakery

A claimant, a machine operator and supervisor, developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tenosynovitis, and separately, a back injury. His claim for workers’ compensation benefits for the carpal tunnel syndrome was established, and he was classified with a permanent partial disability. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, arguing the 2004 back injury constituted a preexisting permanent impairment hindering job potential. The Workers’ Compensation Board granted the application for reimbursement, leading the Fund to appeal this decision. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant's back injury was indeed a preexisting permanent physical impairment which was likely to hinder employment, thus upholding the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPermanent Partial DisabilityPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCarpal Tunnel SyndromeBack InjuryHindrance to EmploymentMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

Walczyk v. Lewis Tree Service, Inc.

Claimant, a tree service worker, sustained a back injury in 2005 and later bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 15% schedule loss of use for each hand due to carpel tunnel syndrome, leading to an award of $29,280. However, due to concurrent compensation for the back injury and the statutory weekly cap of $400, the Judge reduced the carpel tunnel award to $2,916, payable weekly. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, ruling that the claimant was entitled to the full $29,280 schedule loss of use award for the carpel tunnel syndrome, payable in a lump sum, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) as amended in 2009. The employer's carrier appealed, arguing this violated the maximum disability rate provisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the lump-sum payment was an authorized alternative and did not violate the statutory cap, and that prior precedent did not preclude such an award.

schedule loss of uselump sum awardpermanent partial disabilitycarpal tunnel syndromeconcurrent paymentsstatutory capWorkers' Compensation Boardappellate review2009 amendmentsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02252 [195 AD3d 40]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2021

Matter of Part 60 RMBS Put - Back Litig.

This case addresses contractual disputes arising from the pooling and securitization of residential mortgages (RMBS). Computershare Trust Company, National Association, acting as a Separate Securities Administrator, sued Natixis Real Estate Holdings LLC (and its predecessor) for breaching a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) by failing to identify and repurchase nonconforming mortgages. Natixis, in turn, filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Securities Administrator and Master Servicer), alleging Wells Fargo breached its PSA duties to notify of breaches and supervise the Servicer. The Appellate Division ruled that Natixis's statute of limitations defense, based on the borrowing statute (CPLR 202), was not waived, overturning the lower court's decision on this point. It affirmed the dismissal of Natixis's contractual indemnification claim against Wells Fargo but allowed Natixis's independent breach of contract claims (failure to notify and failure to supervise) against Wells Fargo to proceed.

RMBSPut-Back LitigationContractual ObligationsStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteLaw of the CaseWaiverIndemnificationBreach of ContractSecurities Administrator
References
35
Case No. ADJ11016298
Regular
Sep 27, 2019

ROBERT MESEL, vs. CITY OF FRESNO, Permissibly Self-Insured,

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant claimed industrial injury to his lower back sustained during a cumulative period ending January 24, 2017. The administrative law judge found the applicant failed to prove industrial causation, and the applicant sought reconsideration. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The applicant failed to present substantial medical evidence linking his low back condition to industrial factors, and issues with medical evaluator reports were not adequately addressed.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCumulative PeriodTransit SupervisorLower Back ConditionBurden of ProofIndustrial CausationSubstantial Medical EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician
References
3
Case No. ADJ7672487
Regular
Jul 08, 2016

ENRIQUE INIGUEZ vs. BLUE ROSE CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's finding that applicant sustained industrial injury to his right shoulder and left knee, denying his claim for neck and back injury. The Board found applicant waived his claim for neck and back injury by failing to seek reconsideration of the initial decision that only addressed the shoulder and knee. Applicant's petition for reconsideration was technically defective but not dismissed, and the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning. A dissenting opinion argued the initial decision was flawed for failing to address all claimed body parts, thus requiring remand.

AOE/COEWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderPermanent DisabilityPetition for ReconsiderationVerification DefectLucena v. Diablo Auto BodyWCJ ReportPretrial Conference Statement
References
16
Case No. ADJ2275744
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

LARRY COLE vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Cole v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a favorable award for the applicant. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's low back and psyche, resulting in a 78% permanent disability rating. The defendant's objections regarding the admissibility of psychiatric reports and apportionment of disability were rejected, with the Board finding the defendant waived the admissibility issue by failing to object at trial. The Board also held the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment regarding both psyche and low back disability.

ADJ2275744MON 0298527Larry ColeLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityTravelers Insurance CompanyreconsiderationFindings of Fact & Awardindustrial injurylow back injurypsyche injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,261 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