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. ADJ9549208 ADJ10548669
Regular
May 16, 2017

GUILLERMO PALACIOS vs. SPEED TRIMS BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Board granted reconsideration to amend the original award, overturning the finding that applicant sustained an injury on March 31, 2013. However, the Board found insufficient medical evidence to support the prior permanent disability rating for the applicant's left shoulder. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the extent of disability related to the left shoulder. The award for future medical treatment for cumulative trauma injury to the cervical spine, right and left shoulders, and lumbar spine remains, but permanent disability is deferred.

Petition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryPermanent Disability RatingLeft Shoulder Rotator Cuff TearApportionmentMedical EvidenceRange of EvidencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorWCJ Report
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03113 [217 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2023

Sywak v. Grande

Plaintiff William M. Sywak commenced an action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, naming Barbara Grande and Joseph D. Dwyer and Robert D. Dwyer (Dwyer defendants) as parties. Plaintiff alleged serious injuries under various categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and claimed economic loss beyond basic economic loss. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing some serious injury claims but preserving others, including those for lumbar spine injuries. On appeal by the Dwyer defendants, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court granted the Dwyer defendants' motion to dismiss claims related to plaintiff's cervical spine, left hip, left arm, left shoulder, and left leg injuries under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and also dismissed the claim for economic loss in excess of basic economic loss, noting plaintiff's prior unemployment due to a workers' compensation accident. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion regarding plaintiff's lumbar spine injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories, finding a triable issue of fact.

Motor Vehicle AccidentSerious InjuryInsurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionCervical Spine InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryPermanent Consequential Limitation of UseSignificant Limitation of Use90/180-Day Category
References
17
Case No. ADJ11756808
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

JASON KOLB vs. TAMPA BAY DEVIL RAYS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case involves a professional athlete claiming cumulative industrial injury to multiple body parts. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the initial judge erred by solely awarding benefits for the left shoulder, despite unanimous medical evidence of injury to other areas. The Board adopted the opinions of Dr. Kim, finding industrial injury to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, left elbow, wrists, hands, fingers, hips, and left knee. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability award was increased from 3% to 41%.

ADJ11756808Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineRight ShoulderLeft ElbowWrists
References
4
Case No. ADJ13002649, ADJ13002697
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

LORENZO TORRES vs. KOOS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award (F&A) issued on July 21, 2025. The F&A, authored by a Workers' Compensation Judge, found that applicant Lorenzo Torres sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lumbar spine and psyche (ADJ13002649), with the psychological injury not precluded by a good faith personnel action defense, resulting in temporary partial disability and 14% permanent disability to the lumbar spine. Additionally, applicant sustained AOE/COE injuries to his right and left shoulders (ADJ13002697), leading to 3% and 4% permanent disability respectively. Defendant challenged these findings, arguing insufficient evidence for the psyche injury, unjustified temporary partial disability, a lower lumbar spine impairment, and no industrial shoulder injury. The Appeals Board reviewed the matter, including the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, and found the WCJ's conclusions to be supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Board affirmed the original F&A and denied the reconsideration petition.

AOE/COEGood Faith Personnel Action DefensePsychological InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryShoulder InjuryTemporary Partial DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weaver v. Town of Penfield

Gerald F. Weaver, a paramedic supervisor, and other plaintiffs, sued Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. and the Town of Penfield for injuries sustained in an ambulance collision. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability and serious injury to Weaver's left shoulder, while defendant cross-moved to dismiss, arguing no serious injury occurred. The Supreme Court initially found triable issues on serious injury. However, the appellate court determined the lower court erred in considering an unalleged injury category and ultimately concluded that defendant had established a lack of serious injury. The appellate court found plaintiffs failed to provide objective medical evidence to support a serious injury claim, particularly regarding the left shoulder, and noted no cervical spine injury was alleged. Consequently, the appellate court granted defendant's cross-motion and dismissed the complaint against the defendants.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceObjective FindingsShoulder InjuryRange of Motion
References
9
Case No. 526688
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Bufearon v. City of Rochester Bur. of Empl. Relations

Claimant Kamren Bufearon sustained work-related injuries in a motor vehicle collision on March 4, 2016, for which his workers' compensation claim was established for injuries to his left shoulder, left hip, and lower back. Subsequently, he sought to amend his claim to include a causally-related cervical spine injury, which was initially approved by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant failed to sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between his cervical spine condition and the March 4, 2016 incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the medical testimony from two physicians contained conflicting findings and equivocal narratives regarding causation. The court concluded that the Board was entitled to reject the physicians' opinions as speculative, particularly since neither physician had reviewed the claimant's prior medical records for a pre-existing cervical spine fusion surgery.

Cervical spine injuryCausal relationshipMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardPre-existing conditionCredibility of physiciansBurden of proofMotor vehicle accident
References
13
Case No. ADJ1143788 (VNO 0517331) ADJ2670708 (VNO 0517332)
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

SANTIAGO SOTO vs. AUTOZONE, INC., U.S. F& G, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sustained two industrial injuries: one on December 22, 2003 (cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder) and another on September 2, 2004 (right and left knees). The defendant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing that temporary disability benefits for the earlier injury should be limited by Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). However, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the 104-week limitation under section 4656(c)(1) applies only to injuries occurring after its effective date of April 19, 2004. Since the applicant's first injury predates this date, the limitation does not apply to it, and benefits are awarded accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAutoZone Inc.U.S. F& GGallagher BassettSantiago SotoAmended Joint Findings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4656Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00466
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Matter of Kennedy v. 3rd Track Constructors

Claimant Alastair Kennedy, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site, filing for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, foot, and ankle injuries. The employer's carrier accepted the claim for foot and ankle but contested neck and left shoulder injuries, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant's testimony regarding the accident and prior injuries not credible, denying the claims for neck and left shoulder injuries and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the non-causal relation of neck and left shoulder injuries and the mandatory penalty for misrepresentations. However, the Court reversed the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, modifying and affirming the Board's decision as so modified.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimCredibility AssessmentMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Steuber v. Home Properties, Inc.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits after a March 2010 work fall, establishing injuries to his back, left knee, and left hip. After thoracic spine surgery in 2011, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier objected to coverage, arguing it was not causally connected to the initial claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The court credited an independent medical examiner's opinion that the thoracic condition and subsequent falls were unrelated to the compensable accident, despite the claimant's orthopedic surgeon's testimony suggesting otherwise.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationThoracic Spine InjuryDegenerative ConditionIndependent Medical ExaminationSubsequent FallsBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentSubstantial Evidence
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 13,019 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