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 Feliciano v. New York City Health & Hospitals Co.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the left hand claim time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28 and established August 28, 2006, as the disability date for the right hand. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the right hand's disability date but, on its own motion, set December 2003 as the disability date for the left hand, thereby confirming the left hand claim was untimely. The claimant appealed, arguing against two disability dates for a single claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported treating the hand injuries as discrete occupational diseases with separate disablement dates and upheld the time-bar for the left hand claim.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTime-barred ClaimDate of DisablementBilateral InjuriesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial ReviewStatute of Limitations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Service & Allied Industries Joint Board v. Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a joint board representing workers, sued several laundry businesses for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging that the defendants constituted a single employer and failed to provide proper notice of termination. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against the 'Karten defendants' (Supreme Hand Laundry, Inc. and related entities) due to their failure to secure legal representation after their original counsel was disqualified. The court also denied defendant 2350 Fifth Avenue Corp.'s belated motion to amend its answer to assert a 'good faith' defense under the WARN Act, citing undue delay, potential prejudice to plaintiffs, and futility. Final judgment was entered against the Karten defendants for over $600,000, including attorneys' fees, and other defendants were dismissed by agreement or order.

WARN ActDefault JudgmentRule 54(b) CertificationGood Faith DefenseCorporate VeilAttorney DisqualificationStatutory DamagesBack PayMass LayoffPlant Closing
References
9
Case No. ADJ2135528 (VNO 0550980)
Regular
May 22, 2015

NUREN KARTAL vs. THREE HANDS CORPORATION, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, Three Hands Corporation and Oak River Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the petition. This dismissal is based on the WCJ's report, which found the petition moot because the WCJ issued a corrected award superseding the original one. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and dismissed the reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportmootSecond Amended Supplemental FindingsFirst Amended Joint FindingsApplicantDefendantInsurance CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
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
Jul 18, 1975

the Claim of Forest Westfall v. Linesville Construction Co.

The claimant, a 44-year-old pipe line construction worker, sustained a left eye injury in 1971, leading to enucleation. Twenty years prior, he had lost four fingers of his left hand due to an injury in Ohio. The Workmen's Compensation Board found a 95% loss of use of the left hand, concluding he was not totally and permanently disabled under section 15 (subd 8, par [c]) of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as he retained full thumb motion. Conflicting medical testimonies regarding the extent of his hand disability were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, citing that the board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that determining conflicting medical testimony is within the board's purview.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityHand InjuryEye InjuryMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLoss of UsePrior InjuryDisability Percentage
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Santiago v. The NY Operators

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her right hand and subsequently her left wrist, receiving workers' compensation benefits from October 2008 to December 2013. Payments were suspended in December 2013 based on the employer's medical expert opinion that claimant reached maximum medical improvement. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a 17.5% loss of use of her right hand and 7.5% loss of use of her left hand. The Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, restoring the case to the trial calendar for further development of the record, noting that claimant had not been provided an opportunity to present evidence regarding schedule loss of use percentages. Claimant appealed the Board’s failure to determine awards held in abeyance and paid at a tentative rate. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board’s decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, allowing the claimant to appeal any issues upon a final Board decision.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementInterlocutory AppealAppellate ProcedureMedical Expert OpinionBoard Decision RescindedTrial CalendarFurther Development of RecordTentative Rate
References
4
Case No. ADJ1557376 (RIV 0052354) ADJ3175359 (RIV 0053956)
Regular
Oct 20, 2008

RENEE WORLEY vs. NORCO DAISY KART FLORIST, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case consolidated two workers' compensation claims for Renée Worley. The Board affirmed the original findings that she sustained no permanent disability and required no further treatment for her right hand, while awarding 14% permanent disability and further medical treatment for her bilateral upper extremities and low back for a separate injury period. The applicant's petition for reconsideration, arguing for a different disability rating schedule and additional treatment for her hand, was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRenee WorleyNorco Daisy Kart FloristEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ1557376RIV 0052354ADJ3175359RIV 0053956ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 379 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