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
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06424 [188 AD3d 1381]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Hluska v. Central New York Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Kevin Hluska, who previously received a 13% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm due to a 2016 shoulder injury, sustained a new work-related injury to his left elbow in 2017. His physician determined this new injury resulted in a 10% SLU of the left arm. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the previous SLU award for the same arm exceeded the current impairment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3), which limits SLU awards for permanent impairments to specific body parts and allows for multiple awards only if for more than one member or parts of more than one member, but the total award for a member is capped.

Schedule Loss of UseSLU AwardLeft Arm InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Division Third DepartmentPermanent ImpairmentPrior AwardSubsequent Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Burke v. New York Telephone Co.

The employer appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding the claimant a 90% schedule loss of use of the left arm, arguing the award lacked substantial evidence. The record contained a C-71 report from a board medical examiner, dated January 23, 1974, which indicated a permanent partial disability equivalent to a 90% schedule loss of the left arm. While there was a dispute regarding the degree of disability, most medical experts who examined the claimant over a decade agreed that a permanent loss of use of the left hand and arm resulted from the work-related accident. The court determined this case involved conflicting expert medical evidence, which was within the board's purview to resolve. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the board's denial of the employer's request for another medical examination. Consequently, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseMedical Evidence ConflictBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewLeft Arm InjuryMedical Examiner ReportSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAffirmation of Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2013

Claim of Pankiw v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Claimant, who suffered work-related injuries in 2004, had a 20% schedule loss of use of his left arm opined in 2007, and a consequential right shoulder injury was added in 2008 with a 30% schedule loss of use, for which the Special Fund became liable. In 2011, claimant sought further action, leading a WCLJ to transfer liability to the Special Fund. However, the Board reversed, finding the case was not "truly closed" because the issue of the left arm injury remained unaddressed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the lack of resolution on the left arm injury meant further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being deemed truly closed for liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseConsequential InjuryCase ClosureLiability ShiftAppellate DivisionFactual DeterminationCompensation PaymentsUnaddressed Issues
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00614
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Neely (New York City Dept. of Corr.)

Claimant Roscoe Neely appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a June 2017 work-related injury. The Board found that Neely sustained a 10% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his left arm and a 15% SLU of his left leg from this incident. However, due to prior SLU awards from a September 2014 injury (20% SLU left arm, 15% SLU left leg) exceeding the current awards, Neely was deemed not entitled to additional compensation, applying the precedent set in Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its interpretation and application of Matter of Genduso was sound.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Prior Workers' Compensation AwardsOffsetting AwardsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionCorrection Officer InjuryLeft Shoulder InjuryLeft Knee InjuryLeft Arm SLULeft Leg SLU
References
6
Case No. 533217
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

Matter of Kromer v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions

Claimant Douglas A. Kromer established a workers' compensation claim for a work-related rotator cuff tear in his left shoulder. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 35% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left arm, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to 20%, crediting the opinion of Gerald Coniglio, an orthopedic surgeon. The Board further ruled that Kromer was not entitled to a further SLU award due to prior left elbow SLU awards totaling 30%, which exceeded the current 20% award. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, remitting the matter for further consideration. The court found that the Board failed to consider whether the shoulder injury resulted in an increased loss of use of the left arm beyond the prior elbow injuries and also lacked a rational basis for not adding value for a posterior extension defect in the SLU calculation, departing from its own precedent.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Rotator Cuff InjuryShoulder InjuryLeft ArmPrior Injury OffsetMedical OpinionImpairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Knisell v. Treasure Chest Advertising Co.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury on October 12, 1999. Initially reporting an injury to her left arm, she later experienced neck pain and sought workers' compensation benefits for injury to her left arm, shoulder, and neck. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially barred the neck injury claim due to a failure to provide timely notice to the employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the employer was aware of the neck, arm, and shoulder injury on the date of the accident. The employer appealed the Board's reversal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion of employer awareness was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementCausally Related InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryArm InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalEmployer Knowledge
References
1
Case No. 531543
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Matter of Gilliam v. Doccs Wende Corr. Facility

Claimant Wanda Gilliam, a correction officer, sustained work-related injuries to her right hip and left shoulder in May 2017. Following various medical evaluations, including conflicting opinions from orthopedist Michael Grant and independent examiner Louis Nunez regarding schedule loss of use (SLU), a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded a 60% SLU of her left arm and 57.5% SLU of her right leg. Upon administrative review, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, crediting Nunez's evaluation, and awarded a 30% SLU for her left arm while making no SLU award for her right leg, and also reduced the attorney's fee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that it was supported by substantial evidence, particularly in resolving conflicting medical opinions and exercising discretion regarding counsel fees. The court found no abuse of discretion in the reduction of attorney's fees, noting the limited period of representation.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Left Arm InjuryRight Leg InjuryOrthopedic ExaminationMedical Opinion ConflictAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesDiscretionary AwardSubstantial Evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2015

Claim of Daniels v. Long Island D.D.S.O.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded her a schedule loss of use for a left arm injury sustained in April 2009. She contended she was improperly denied the right to be present and testify at a June 1, 2015 hearing, arguing it would have led to a permanent partial disability classification and greater benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied her motion for an extension to depose her treating physician and, without further testimony, based the award on her left arm injury. The Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no improper exclusion as claimant was represented by counsel, and her proposed testimony was irrelevant to the WCLJ's decision, which lacked persuasive medical evidence for a neck disability.

Schedule Loss of UseLeft Arm InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityHearing RightsMedical TestimonyIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewDue ProcessCounsel RepresentationWorkers’ Compensation Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,163 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