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 Brady v. Northeast Riggers & Erectors

In March 2012, the claimant, a union construction laborer, sustained a work-related back and abdomen injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found the claimant attached to the labor market but deemed a total industrial disability finding premature because permanent disability had not yet been classified. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board erred in declining to classify him with a temporary total industrial disability. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that a classification of temporary total industrial disability cannot be made without a prior determination of permanency.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilityPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityLabor MarketAppellate DivisionBoard DecisionPremature DeterminationGainful EmploymentWork History
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kowalchyk v. Wade Lupe Construction Co.

The claimant, a carpenter over 60 with an 11th-grade education, fractured his back and wrist in August 1985 while on a construction jobsite. Initially, his physician, Dr. James Slavin, considered him totally disabled, and he received total disability benefits from his employer's carrier. However, in December 1985, the employer reduced benefits to a partial disability rate, relying on a report from their consultant, Dr. Edward Pasquarella. The claimant subsequently filed for compensation, leading to a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and ultimately the Workers’ Compensation Board that he had a total industrial disability. The employer appealed this decision, arguing it lacked substantial evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, considering the claimant’s physical limitations, age, work experience, and limited education, concluding he had no marketable skills outside carpentry.

Workers' CompensationTotal Industrial DisabilityPartial DisabilityMedical Testimony ConflictEarning Capacity AssessmentAppellate ReviewVocational RehabilitationAge & Education FactorsCarpenter InjuryScaffold Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Krausa v. Totales Debevoise Corp.

Walter Krausa's 1994 claim for silicosis was established, leading to his classification as permanently totally disabled, and his workers' compensation carrier, the State Insurance Fund, became eligible for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. After Krausa's death in 2007, his widow filed for death benefits, which were awarded by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, who simultaneously discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability. The carrier appealed this decision, seeking continued reimbursement, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied their request. This appellate court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that the statutory language regarding the "date of accident or date of disablement" refers to the original disablement date of September 24, 1992, not the date of death, and that death is considered a consequence of the original injury, not a new accident. Therefore, the court concluded that the carrier was indeed entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationSilicosisOccupational DiseaseSpecial Disability FundReimbursementDeath BenefitsStatutory InterpretationDate of DisablementDate of AccidentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1983

Claim of McNeil v. Geary

The claimant, a groom, injured her left knee in 1979 and was initially found temporarily totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board later reclassified her injury as a 15% permanent partial disability of the left leg, dating from the time of injury, and increased her benefits based on wage expectancy due to her being under 25. The employer appealed, arguing that wage expectancy benefits should not apply to the period of temporary total disability and that the record didn't substantiate a permanent partial disability ab initio. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that reclassification is a factual determination within the Board's sole province and was based on substantial evidence, and that the Board has continuing jurisdictional power to modify findings.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage ExpectancyWorkers' Compensation LawInjury ReclassificationBoard JurisdictionSubstantial EvidenceLeft Knee InjuryGroomRiding AcademyTemporary Total Disability
References
4
Case No. SRO 0135117
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

CARLOS ROJAS vs. OGLETREE'S, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant Carlos Rojas's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity following a cervical spine, right shoulder, and right arm injury. The defendant sought to limit payments based on Labor Code section 4656(c)(1), arguing the 104-week period began with the first compensable disability. The Appeals Board affirmed the lower decision, holding that the 104-week limit is triggered by the date of the *first payment* of temporary disability, not the date of the injury or when benefits were initially owed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)OverpaymentExpedited HearingFindings and OrderTemporary Disability IndemnityCompensable Temporary DisabilityCommencement of Payment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Keefe v. Aramatic Refreshment Services Inc.

The claimant had two established workers' compensation claims for back injuries from 2004 and 2009, with benefits equally apportioned. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of benefits for the 2009 claim, specifically whether to use the claimant's 2009 wages or the higher 2004 wages. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the 2009 wages should be used for the 2009 claim, aligning with Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5) and § 15 (7). The Appellate Division affirmed this aspect of the Board's decision. However, the Board's unexplained reduction of a temporary total disability award to a marked temporary partial disability was found to be an error, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Board for further proceedings to address this inconsistency.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuriesDisability BenefitsWage CalculationTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRemittalApportionmentJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Williams v. Preferred Meal Systems

Claimant, a driver, suffered injuries to his right knee and back in 2009 while making a delivery, leading to an established workers' compensation claim. The claim was later amended to include consequential adjustment disorder, and the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately found that claimant had sustained a permanent total disability from May 2012 onward. The employer, workers’ compensation carrier, and policy administrator appealed this decision, arguing that further proof was needed regarding claimant's vocational and functional capacity. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that extensive evidence of vocational and functional capacity is not required when medical proof demonstrates a permanent total disability and inability to engage in any gainful employment, as benefits continue for life in such cases. The court found substantial evidence in the opinions of treating and independent medical examination orthopedists to support the finding of permanent total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityMedical ProofVocational CapacityFunctional CapacityAppellate ReviewNew York LawDisability BenefitsClaimant Rights
References
4
Case No. SFO 0485029
Regular
Aug 10, 2007

MARIA CARDENAS vs. GALAXY DESSERTS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior order denying the defendant's petition to terminate temporary disability indemnity. The Board held that the 104-week limitation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) begins from the date of the first temporary disability payment, not the date of injury or the first compensable period. This decision aligns with precedent establishing that the commencement date for the limitation is the actual date indemnity was first paid.

temporary disability indemnityPetition to Terminate LiabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)104 compensable weeksfirst payment of temporary disability indemnityfirst date of compensable temporary total disabilityHawkins v. Amberwood Products
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 25,012 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