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
Nov 29, 2001

Claim of Caiazza v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant, a former machinist, developed skin cancer in 1990 and later lung and brain cancers in 2000, attributed to occupational exposure. Following his retirement in 2001, the employer conceded the lung and brain cancers were consequential to the initial skin cancer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant permanently totally disabled and awarded weekly benefits of $300, based on the original skin cancer disablement date of February 27, 1986. The claimant sought Workers' Compensation Board review, arguing for an April 24, 2000 disablement date (diagnosis of lung/brain cancers) to receive higher benefits of $400/week. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the claimant's prior stipulation to modify the original claim for consequential injuries and established law that such awards are measured by rates at the time of the original injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable to rely on the claimant's agreement and that the award rate was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDate of DisablementBenefit Rate CalculationConsequential InjurySkin CancerLung CancerBrain CancerPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2002

Depew v. Lancet Arch, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that denied the claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Previously, the Board had found that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury in the course of employment and denied workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant sought to reopen the matter based on "newly discovered evidence," including a coworker's testimony from a discrimination suit and medical reports prepared after the case was closed. The court affirmed the Board's denial, concluding that the "newly discovered evidence" did not meet the standards set forth in 12 NYCRR 300.14, as the coworker's information was not new, and the medical evidence was not shown to be unavailable at the original hearings. The court limited its review to whether the denial of reconsideration was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

Workers’ Compensation BoardAppealReconsiderationFull Board ReviewNewly Discovered EvidenceCausally Related DisabilityProcedural StandardsMedical EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1997

Hildenbrandt v. Transportation Manufacturing Co.

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board initially found that the claimant, a welder who suffered head and knee injuries, did not sustain a causally related disability, concluding his injuries resulted from a mugging away from work and after hours, not a workplace fall. This determination was supported by evidence such as the claimant seeking reimbursement from the Crime Victims Board, physician notes detailing an assault, and the claimant's failure to report the incident to his employer. Subsequently, the Board denied the claimant's application for reconsideration or full Board review, citing the irrelevance of newly discovered medical records concerning non-work-related injuries sustained years after the original incident. The court affirmed both decisions, finding the Board's initial determination supported by substantial evidence and its denial of reconsideration to be a proper exercise of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWork InjuryCausationMugging IncidentMedical EvidenceBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceReconsideration DenialClaimant Appeal
References
4
Case No. LAO 0872687
Regular
Jul 01, 2008

VICKI JOHNSON vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the finding that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury, upholding the original decision based on the judge's report and applicant's credibility. However, the Board granted the lien claimant's petition, amending the original findings to clarify that lien issues, including payment for subpoena services, were not addressed at trial. The Board affirmed the denial of the applicant's claim while rectifying the procedural status of the lien claimant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsyche/StressPsychiatric InjuryMedical OpinionCredibilityLien ClaimantSubpoena ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Earnest v. J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd.

The claimant, a secretary for an interior design company, alleged a back injury in March 2003 while lifting a box. The initial claim was disallowed by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in January 2006. The claimant's application for reconsideration or full Board review was denied in a decision filed August 1, 2006. The current appeal solely challenges the denial of reconsideration, not the merits of the original claim. The court affirmed the Board's denial, concluding it was neither arbitrary nor capricious, as no new evidence had been presented.

AppealReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewNon-Compensable InjuryAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate DivisionBack Injury ClaimNo New Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1981

Claim of Green v. Community Day Care Center

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, originally filed on July 15, 1981, and later amended on December 21, 1981. The Board had determined that the claimant was disabled and eligible for weekly compensation payments of $46.18 for the period from October 1, 1979, to October 16, 1980. This determination was based on reports from Drs. Harrow and Wilier, which indicated that the claimant's loss of earnings was due to a continuing causally related disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support its findings, and awarded costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Disability CompensationWorkers' Compensation BoardLoss of EarningsCausally Related DisabilityAppellate AffirmationMedical OpinionSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensation RateDisability Period
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brunswick v. Spangenthal

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier, Bakers Mutual Insurance Company, from a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The claimant sustained a back injury in 1949, when Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company was the carrier. The case was reopened in 1956 after the claimant stopped work, with the appellant carrier alleging a new accident. The claimant contended his worsening condition was a progression of the original injury. The Referee and Board initially found a new accident, allocating liability between both carriers. However, the court found no medical evidence to attribute the claimant's disability to the alleged 1956 accident, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the claim for further proceedings.

Back InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkmen’s Compensation BoardNew Accident ClaimApportionment of LiabilityMedical EvidenceReversed and RemittedCarrier ResponsibilityPre-existing ConditionProgressive Pain
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1995

Claim of Tomlin v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

The claimant, a site manager for 23 years, began experiencing chest pains in February 1984. His employer granted him a medical leave and requested documentation. The claimant's treating physician, Patrick McAndrew, diagnosed essential hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chest pain of undetermined origin. The employer then used a disability claim form as a claim for a self-administered salary continuation plan, paying benefits under it. After an examination by the employer's physician, John Walters, who found no organic heart disease, the employer terminated the claimant, considering his absence a voluntary termination due to lack of a "bona fide" disability. The claimant subsequently filed for statutory disability benefits and a claim for discriminatory discharge with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 241 for retaliation. The Board asserted jurisdiction, found discrimination, but reduced damages due to the claimant's failure to actively seek employment. The employer appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence, but the decision was affirmed.

References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. City School District

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 29, 1983, which found a continuing causally related moderate disability stemming from a January 20, 1976 accident. The appeal focused on whether substantial evidence supported the Board's determination, considering intervening injuries and the claimant's severe obesity as contributing factors. The record included conflicting medical opinions, but experts agreed obesity contributed to the original injury and continuing disability. The Board emphasized the testimony of the claimant’s attending orthopedist, who related the present condition to the 1976 incident. The court, finding substantial evidence in the record, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationDisabilityCausationMedical TestimonyObesityThoraco-lumbar sprainAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedistPrior Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of De Pasquale v. General Electric Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on April 24, 1980, which denied his application to reopen a claim. The claimant had been declared permanently, totally disabled in 1965 due to work-related back and neck injuries from 1948. In 1976, he sought payment for cardiac treatment bills, which the compensation carrier refused, believing the heart condition was unrelated to the original accident. After the case was reopened, a referee found no causal relationship in 1978, and the case was closed without an appeal being taken. The claimant subsequently attempted three times to reopen the case to prove causal relationship, but the Board consistently denied these applications. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board acted within its authority by refusing to relitigate the issue since a timely appeal had not been filed from the 1978 decision.

Workers' Compensation AppealReopening ClaimCausal RelationshipHeart ConditionBack and Neck InjuriesPermanent Total DisabilityBoard AuthorityTimely AppealMedical OpinionAdministrative Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,650 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