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
Sep 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Raub v. Cutler Hammer, Inc.

The claimant, a laborer for over 30 years, ceased working in December 1997 due to a back injury attributed to his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a prior determination, finding a moderate, permanent partial disability that was 50% attributable to his job, and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence. However, the court disagreed, upholding the Board's finding based on the claimant's physician's testimony that repetitive bending and heavy lifting significantly contributed to his degenerative disk disease and disability. The decision emphasized the Board's authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence.

Back InjuryDegenerative Disk DiseasePermanent Partial DisabilityCausationMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRepetitive StressLifting Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1980

Claim of Butts v. Ward La France Trucking Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board found claimant’s disability to be 45% attributable to a March 1976 work accident, 10% to an August 1977 nonrelated accident, and 45% to a November 1977 work accident. The employer's carrier for the second work accident appealed the 45% apportionment. The court found no substantial evidence to support the Board's apportionment, citing testimonies from Dr. Burke, who attributed 90% of disability to the first work accident, and Dr. Corradini, who believed the first accident's disability ended by January 1977 and the current disability was primarily from the nonrelated accident. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Disability ApportionmentWork-Related InjuryNon-Related InjuryMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewReversal of DecisionRemittal for Further ProceedingsInsurance Carrier Dispute
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ozga v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed June 27, 1997, which denied death benefits to a claimant, ruling that the death of their 35-year-old decedent was not causally related to a work-related hand injury. The decedent, a seafood clerk, sustained a sprain and bruise in January 1994 and died in May 1994 from alcohol-induced hepatitis. Conflicting medical testimonies were presented: one expert attributed death to alcohol-induced hepatitis and cardiorespiratory failure, unrelated to the hand injury; another attributed it to blood poisoning stemming from the injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's prerogative to weigh conflicting medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsConflicting Medical TestimonySubstantial Evidence ReviewAlcohol-Induced HepatitisHand InjuryMedical Expert OpinionAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1979

Claim of Ellert v. Ellert Brothers & Sons, Inc.

The claimant suffered a serious right knee injury on November 2, 1972, while working, which resulted in a 75% permanent partial disability. This disability was apportioned, with 40% attributed to the accident and 60% to a pre-existing condition of advanced arthritis. The claimant's average weekly wage was $250. Under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (subd 6, par [c]), applicable to the accident date, the maximum weekly compensation for permanent partial disability was $80. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded the claimant $32 per week, which represented 40% of the $80 maximum, aligning with the causation attributed to the accident. The court affirmed the board's decision, finding the apportionment of liability and the application of the maximum partial disability rate to be proper and rationally based, consistent with established legal precedents.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of LiabilityPre-existing ConditionEarning Capacity LossMaximum Weekly CompensationAppellate ReviewCausation in InjuryJudicial PrecedentWorkers’ Compensation Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilcox v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to their right ankle in December 2004, twelve years after an unrelated surgery on the same ankle. Following the 2004 incident, the claimant's treating physician opined a 45% schedule loss of use of the right foot, not attributing any part of the loss to the earlier noncompensable injury. The employer's medical examiner concurred on the 45% loss but concluded that 50% was attributable to the prior injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted the 45% award, rejecting the employer's claim of apportionment, a decision subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding insufficient medical evidence to support apportionment given the unavailability of records from the 1992 surgery and the speculative nature of opinions regarding a preexisting loss of use.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentSchedule Loss of UseAnkle InjuryPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsWorkers' Compensation BoardTreating PhysicianMedical Examiner
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. State of New York Department of Corrections

Plaintiff Melvin Davis, an African-American correction officer at Fishkill Correctional Facility, sued his employer DOCCS and coworkers Keith Canfield and James McAnney for hostile work environment under Title VII and § 1983, and for retaliation under Title VII. Davis alleged three incidents: a bag remnant and twine resembling a noose, a toy rat with a noose outside his apartment, and racist graffiti in the workplace restroom. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the bag remnant did not objectively resemble a noose, the toy rat incident could not be attributed to the defendants, and DOCCS took appropriate remedial action regarding the graffiti. Consequently, the court concluded that the incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, and the retaliation claim also failed due to lack of attributable adverse action.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentCorrection OfficerWorkplace HarassmentRacial DiscriminationCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1983
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campito v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying her claim for consequential right shoulder injury benefits. In 2008, the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her neck, left elbow, and upper back. She later sought to amend her claim to include a consequential right shoulder injury, attributing it to overuse caused by her established left arm injury. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found no competent medical evidence to support a causal link. An independent medical examiner, James McGowan, attributed the right shoulder issues to adhesive capsulitis related to her diabetic condition, rather than the work accident. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that resolving conflicting medical opinions falls within the Board’s exclusive authority and their determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryOveruse InjuryMedical EvidenceCausationAdhesive CapsulitisDiabetesConflicting Medical OpinionsSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 permits a partially negligent general contractor to enforce an indemnification provision against its subcontractor for damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence. The plaintiff, Stephen J. Brooks, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., sustained injuries and sued the general contractor, Judlau Contracting, Inc. Judlau asserted a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Thunderbird, which was initially dismissed by lower courts on the grounds that Judlau's partial negligence precluded indemnification under the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute does permit such indemnification as long as the provision does not seek to indemnify the general contractor for its own negligence, but only for that portion attributable to the subcontractor. The court clarified that the phrase 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' limits the subcontractor's obligation to its own negligence, thereby enforcing the indemnification provision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceConstruction AccidentGeneral Obligations LawWorkers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationPartial NegligenceHold Harmless ClauseThird-Party Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Noto v. Ford Motor Co.

A claimant who worked as a welder for 26 years developed a 30.6% binaural hearing loss attributed to high noise levels during employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the self-insured employer entirely responsible for this loss. The employer appealed, arguing that a portion of the disability was attributable to the claimant's previous employment with Growers & Packers Cooperative & Canning Company. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-ee (1), which holds the last employer liable for total compensation for hearing loss unless specific conditions for apportionment are met and proven. Despite the employer conducting a preplacement hearing examination and notifying Growers & Packers, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between any preexisting hearing loss and the prior employment, siding with the claimant's testimony. The employer's other contentions, including a request for further record development, were deemed without merit.

Hearing LossOccupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationApportionmentLast Employer LiabilityPreplacement ExaminationNoise ExposureEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dement v. Kelly

Petitioner William Dement, a former NYPD lieutenant and 9/11 first responder, challenged the denial of his World Trade Center (WTC) line-of-duty accident disability retirement (ADR) pension. Dement developed multiple conditions, including severe sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), after his WTC exposure. The Medical Board repeatedly denied his WTC-ADR application, attributing his disability solely to sleep apnea unrelated to WTC exposure, despite evidence linking GERD and heavy metal poisoning (recognized WTC conditions) to his sleep apnea and overall disability. The Supreme Court upheld the denial. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the respondents failed to rebut the WTC presumption of causation. The court determined that Dement's disabling sleep apnea was attributable to WTC exposure and exacerbated by his WTC-related GERD, as supported by medical literature. The case was remanded for an award of a WTC-ADR pension, emphasizing the legislative intent to protect 9/11 workers.

WTC Disability RetirementFirst Responder HealthCausation StandardPresumptive EvidenceMedical Board ReviewSleep Apnea DisabilityGastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)Heavy Metal ToxicityPolice Pension BenefitsArticle 78 Proceeding
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 457 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