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 Dudek v. Victory Markets

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant’s eligibility to reopen a 1986 work-related knee injury claim. The claimant sustained an initial knee injury in 1986, for which compensation was paid for a brief period. After a subsequent knee injury in 2001 and a knee replacement surgery in 2011, an independent medical examination attributed a majority of the knee replacement to the 1986 injury. The employer argued that liability for the 1986 claim should transfer to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, and further payments were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, due to the claim being truly closed since 1986. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this position. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported that the 1986 case was truly closed and that the time limits imposed by Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 25-a and 123 applied, thus barring the reopening of the case and further benefits.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryReopened CasesSpecial FundStatute of LimitationsAdvance CompensationTrue ClosureLiability TransferMedical CausationIndependent Medical Examination
References
7
Case No. ADJ8134312
Regular
Sep 15, 2016

ERNIE GALLEGOS vs. GROTH BROTHERS CHEVROLET, AUTO DEALERS COMPENSATION OF CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The applicant sustained a right knee injury, leading to a total knee replacement. The original award granted permanent disability without apportionment, which the defendant appealed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that apportionment to pre-existing knee conditions was legally permissible even after total knee replacement. The case is remanded for a new award based on the Qualified Medical Evaluator's 50% apportionment to pre-existing pathology. A dissenting opinion argues the medical evidence lacked sufficient reasoning to support apportionment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDERNE GALLEGOSGROTH BROTHERS CHEVROLETAUTO DEALERS COMPENSATION OF CALIFORNIACORVELADJ8134312PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENT
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2005

Bremner v. New Venture Gear

Claimant underwent a right knee replacement in 1991 due to a non-work-related condition. In October 2002, he sustained work-related injuries to his right shoulder and right knee, leading to increased knee pain from loosening knee replacement components, ultimately requiring surgery. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found apportionment inapplicable for temporary disability benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that apportionment does not apply where a pre-existing non-compensable condition did not hinder the claimant's ability to perform job duties at the time of the work-related accident. The court noted that claimant was asymptomatic and fully capable of performing his duties when the accident occurred.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentPre-existing ConditionKnee InjuryWork-related AccidentTemporary Disability BenefitsAppellate ReviewCausationMedical ConditionSurgery
References
4
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. ADJ9179881
Regular
Dec 19, 2014

CURTIS MAUCH vs. CITY OF LODI, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the prior decision that required liability for necessary medical treatment. This liability is specifically limited to treatment enabling knee replacement surgery, not for subsequent conditions. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, citing *Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* to support the decision. The case involved an applicant needing knee replacement surgery, and the defendant argued that a separate cardiac defibrillator issue was unrelated to the industrial injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of LodiYork Risk Services GroupAdministrative Law JudgeKnee replacement surgeryCardiac defibrillatorBraewood Convalescent HospitalLabor Code Section 5903Myers
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2000

Flaherty v. American Turners New York, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained a knee injury and subsequent replacement after slipping on ice on defendant's property. A jury initially awarded plaintiff damages for past pain and suffering but no future damages. The Supreme Court's determination of defendant's liability for the injury was affirmed on appeal. However, the appellate court modified the judgment, granting plaintiff's application for a new trial, specifically on the issue of future damages. This decision was influenced by the improper admission of a disability report from Dr. Comfort, which lacked sufficient reliability and a proper foundation, and evidence suggesting the current injury exacerbated a pre-existing condition, leading to a more difficult recovery than a previous knee replacement.

slip and fallice accidentknee injuryknee replacementfuture damagespast pain and sufferingjury verdictliabilitynew trialhearsay rule
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2001

Claim of Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc.

The case involves a claimant appealing a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board ruled that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose prior left and right knee injuries to physicians and under oath, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found no fraud, the Board reversed this determination on administrative appeal, concluding the claimant knowingly made false statements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the Board's authority as the sole arbiter of witness credibility. The court rejected the claimant's explanations of forgetting the prior incidents as not credible.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Medical HistoryFalse Statements Under OathWage Replacement Benefits DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Law Section 114-aAppellate Review of Board DecisionWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidencePrior Knee InjuriesAdministrative Appeal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Lichten v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, a bus driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to an occupational disease stemming from repetitive stress injuries to his legs, including his hips, knees, and feet, caused by his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the case for bilateral hips but disallowed the claim for bilateral knees. This disallowance was upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision. Medical testimony presented conflicting opinions regarding the causal relationship of claimant's knee condition to his work activities. The Board's decision to discredit the treating orthopedist's opinion was found to be supported by substantial evidence and was within its authority concerning credibility determinations. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryBilateral KneesCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionBus Driver
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03425
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Hopeck v. Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp.

Claimant Edward Hopeck suffered a left knee injury in 1984, receiving a schedule loss of use award which was later increased. After knee replacement surgery in 2006, awards were made for a temporary disability period, but a new injury claim was canceled and merged with the original, marked for no further action pending new medical evidence. Despite additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, Hopeck did not seek further awards until 2020. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that reopening the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123 due to the lapse of time and the claimant's decade-long inaction. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the Board's finding of a truly closed case was not disturbed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Schedule Loss of UseClaim ReopeningStatute of LimitationsLachesAppellate ReviewKnee InjurySurgical InterventionBoard Decision AffirmedMedical Evidence Requirement
References
7
Case No. 533459
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Hopeck

Claimant Edward Hopeck sustained a left knee injury in 1984, leading to a schedule loss of use award which was later increased in 2000. Following knee replacement surgery in 2006, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge marked the case for no further action pending new medical evidence. In 2020, after additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, claimant sought further awards. However, both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the reopening of the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123, citing the lapse of time since the injury and last payment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's decade-long inaction in pursuing awards constituted an abandonment of the claim, thus making the time limitations of § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Reopening of ClaimStatute of LimitationsSchedule Loss of Use AwardKnee InjuryAppellate ReviewClaim AbandonmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionJudicial Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,236 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