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 Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sexton v. Cincinnati Inc.

The plaintiff sustained grave hand injuries during employment with Phoenix Metal Fabricating, Inc., leading to a lawsuit where defendants filed third-party complaints against Phoenix. Phoenix moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's injuries were not 'grave' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that the defendants-third-party plaintiffs presented sufficient medical expert evidence to raise a factual issue regarding the 'permanent and total' loss of use of the plaintiff's hands, thereby constituting a grave injury. The medical expert testified the plaintiff performed activities using adaptive techniques with arms, not hands, despite some limited hand function.

grave injuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11summary judgmentpermanent total disabilityloss of use of handsthird-party actionmedical expertappellate affirmationissue of factemployment injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Steinhauser v. Ontario County

A motor vehicle representative experienced pain in her right elbow and hand after being required to work in an abnormal position at a new work station. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified her condition as an occupational disease. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified it as an accidental injury, citing September 28, 2000, as the accident date. The employer appealed, contesting the change in theory and denying an accident occurred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, drawing parallels to a previous case, Matter of Farcasin v PDG, Inc., involving similar circumstances of injuries from an ergonomically incorrect work station.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseErgonomicsWork Station InjuryElbow InjuryHand InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Landgrebe v. County of Westchester

Claimant Donald Landgrebe, a Westchester County correction officer, sustained a back injury at work. The county paid his full wages during his disability. Nine months later, he suffered a hand injury in a separate accident, found to be consequential to his original back injury, for which he received a “schedule award.” The county sought full reimbursement from this schedule award for both periods of advanced wages. The Workers’ Compensation Board limited reimbursement to payments made after the hand injury. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, allowing full reimbursement. This court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board’s decision, ruling that reimbursement from a schedule award for a consequential injury should not cover wage advances for an unrelated initial injury.

Workers' CompensationSchedule AwardReimbursementAdvance PaymentsConsequential InjuryDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationNew York LawPermanent Partial Disability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jasmine v. Rainbow Grill

In 1976, the claimant sustained a hand injury, which later led to a diagnosed traumatic depression-anxiety reaction. The Workers' Compensation Board initially awarded weekly benefits, but the employer suspended payments in 1982 after the claimant allegedly failed to attend a psychiatric examination by Dr. Peter Aldin. The Board subsequently reversed a directive for a new psychiatrist, upheld the suspension of all payments including those for the hand injury, and closed the case due to the claimant's non-cooperation. This appeal resulted in a modification of the Board's decision, affirming the suspension of psychiatric treatment payments but reinstating disability payments for the uncontroverted hand injury. The court also denied a 20% penalty against the employer, finding their initial suspension of benefits was in good-faith reliance on the Board's determination.

Workers' Compensation BoardDisability BenefitsMedical Evaluation RefusalPsychiatric ConditionHand InjuryPayment SuspensionStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionPenalty Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pedro v. Liberty Lines Express

The claimant, a mechanic, sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his right thumb. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined this constituted a 50% schedule loss of the use of his right hand and awarded benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the injury was exclusively to the thumb and that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not explicitly allow for a single digit loss to be compensated as a partial loss of hand function. The court adopted a flexible approach, asserting that schedule allowances should not be deemed exclusive when treating a smaller member's loss as a percentage of a larger member's loss. Based on the testimony of the Board’s principal medical examiner, who stated the thumb injury diminished the prehensile function of the entire right hand, the court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers’ CompensationSchedule LossThumb AmputationRight Hand InjuryPrehensile FunctionAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyInjury CompensationStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. ADJ1797870
Regular
May 23, 2019

GEORGE DIAZ vs. REYES MASONRY CONTRACTORS, INC., CITATION INSURANCE COMPANY, GENERAL REINSURANCE, INTERCARE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied George Diaz's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 93.75% permanent disability. The judge apportioned 30% of Diaz's orthopedic disability to prior injuries, relying on medical evidence of degenerative changes aggravated by the 1992 industrial injury. Diaz's arguments for 100% permanent disability due to total disability or loss of use of both hands were rejected due to insufficient medical evidence. The Board found the apportionment was supported by substantial medical evidence and did not qualify for an unapportioned award under the *Hikida* precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGeorge DiazReyes Masonry ContractorsInc.Citation Insurance CompanyGeneral ReinsuranceIntercareSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF)permanent total disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. ADJ575595 (SRO 0118927) ADJ2965361 (SRO 0122685)
Regular
May 21, 2009

JEFFREY DOTY vs. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior workers' compensation award. The applicant argued the $34\%$ permanent disability rating was incorrect, specifically regarding the overlap of his hand injuries and MRSA infection. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the dates of injury in the original findings. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original award but amended the findings to reflect the correct dates of injury for the left hand/bilateral upper extremities/MRSA and the right elbow injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCircuit City StoresMRSAPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings of FactJoint Findings Award and OrderSales ClerkIndustrial InjuryLeft Hand
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pellegrino v. Textile Prints Corp.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from 1980, which awarded a 90% scheduled loss of use of his right arm due to a 1968 accident and discharged the Special Fund from liability. The claimant had a prior 1966 work-related arm injury. The Board found that the 90% loss was solely due to the second accident, which involved the hand not injured previously. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that it was supported by substantial medical evidence showing the 1968 injury to the hand, superimposed on the prior injury, resulted in greater overall disability. The court clarified that the Board is not limited to a 100% total schedule loss and can assess each injury individually.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseRight Arm InjurySecond AccidentPre-existing ConditionSpecial Disability FundMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConcurrent Injuries
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 12,793 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