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

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 25, 2013, which denied his application to include a partial right rotator cuff tear under his existing 2002 work-related injury claim. The Board found that claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2002 automobile accident and the 2009 rotator cuff tear, despite the opinion of his orthopedist. The orthopedist acknowledged that age-related degeneration could cause such tears independently of trauma. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the orthopedist's testimony did not convincingly prove a causal relationship.

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence
References
4
Case No. 518426
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2014

MatterofAndersonvNewYorkCityDepartmentofDesign&Construction

Donald Anderson, the claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a 2002 work-related automobile accident. Initially, his claim was established for neck and back injuries, but in 2005, the Workers' Compensation Board determined he had no continuing disability, noting he was magnifying symptoms. In 2009, Anderson was diagnosed with a partial right rotator cuff tear, which he sought to include under his existing claim, alleging a causal link to the 2002 accident. The Board denied this application, finding a lack of established causal relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Anderson failed to present convincing evidence from his orthopedist or any other proof to establish the necessary causal connection between the 2002 accident and his right rotator cuff tear.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRotator Cuff TearAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewShoulder InjurySubstantial EvidenceCausation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cuff v. Gleason

The plaintiff, a former longshore industry employee, sought disability benefits from the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Pension Trust Fund and Pension Plan. The Board of Trustees denied his application, arguing he failed to meet a continuous 15-year service requirement immediately preceding his application, due to a break in employment. The plaintiff contended the plan's Article III, Section 7, contained no such condition. The district court found the Board's interpretation arbitrary and capricious, ruling that the section was clear and did not imply the additional requirement. The court concluded the plaintiff had a vested right to the pension, granting his motion and denying the defendant's.

Pension PlanDisability BenefitsLongshore IndustryTaft-Hartley ActBoard of TrusteesArbitrary and CapriciousVesting RightsContinuous ServicePlan InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2009

Claim of Cuffe v. Supercuts

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found no further causally related disability after April 16, 2008, despite her December 2007 neck and back injury sustained as a hair stylist. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge had initially awarded benefits but later determined the disability ceased. The Board affirmed this ruling. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from an independent medical examiner who reported the claimant had no disability and could return to work without restrictions, thereby resolving conflicting medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationDisabilityMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewHair StylistNeck InjuryBack InjuryWork-Related InjuryIndependent Medical Examination
References
3
Case No. LAO 854789
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

Juana Manriquez vs. KENVIN, INC., dba CORDOVAN & GREY LTD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought extended temporary disability benefits, claiming a rotator cuff debridement during shoulder arthroscopy constituted an "amputation" under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that "debridement" of an internal body part, like bone, does not meet the statutory definition of amputation. This definition requires the severance or removal of a limb or body appendage, conforming to the common understanding of the term.

Juana ManriquezKenvin IncState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 854789Petition for ReconsiderationAugust 6 2007 Findings and Ordershoulder arthroscopyamputationLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)temporary disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Lapinski v. Gusmar Realty Corp.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted defendant Pantelis Fakiris' motion for summary judgment. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was Workers’ Compensation. The court affirmed the order, holding that a worker injured during employment cannot sue the premises owner if the owner is also an officer of the employing corporation, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6] and several other cases.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyPremises LiabilityCorporate OfficerEmployer LiabilityAppellate DecisionNew York LawJudicial Affirmation
References
3
Case No. ADJ2934117 (STK 0214084)
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

BENNIE MADAVE vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a right shoulder rotator cuff repair surgery denied by a WCJ. The WCJ ruled the need for surgery stemmed from a subsequent non-industrial accident, not the initial industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original order, and returned the case for further medical record development. This is because the medical evidence failed to definitively determine if the surgery was necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, even if the tear itself wasn't solely industrially caused.

Rotator cuff repairIndustrial injuryNon-industrial accidentUtilization reviewPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEApportionmentPermanent disabilityInextricably linkedFurther development of medical record
References
1
Case No. ADJ7744103, ADJ7580182 (MF)
Regular
May 05, 2014

IGNACIO RAMOS vs. GREENWOOD DAIRY, CALIFORNIA LIVESTOCK PROCDUCERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the judge's decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. While finding no permanent disability from the applicant's industrial foot injury, the Board determined that the applicant did sustain industrial injury in the form of a fungal foot infection and bilateral foot sprain. The Board disagreed with the trial judge's finding of no industrial injury and clarified that Dr. McCoy's opinion, not Dr. Panting's, constituted substantial evidence regarding the nature of the industrial injury. Issues of temporary disability and further medical treatment were deferred to the trial level for further decision.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationSubstantial EvidenceMedical ProbabilityOsteonecrosisFreiberg's infractionFungal foot infection
References
0
Case No. ADJ1313860
Regular
Mar 07, 2017

Kevin Voelker vs. D. Frey Plastering Co., State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant challenging an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination that denied authorization for shoulder surgery. The applicant argued the IMR incorrectly applied guidelines for acromioplasty/impingement syndrome instead of guidelines for a rotator cuff tear, which was the actual condition for which surgery was requested. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the IMR's determination was based on a plainly erroneous mistake of fact readily apparent from the submitted records, not requiring expert opinion. Consequently, the Board rescinded the IMR determination and remanded the matter for a new IMR process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPlainly Erroneous Finding of FactMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleRequest for AuthorizationRotator Cuff TearAcromioplastyImpingement Syndrome
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08125 [133 AD3d 470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Acosta v. Gouverneur Court Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff, Jesus Acosta, a maintenance worker, alleged he fell in a boiler room of a building owned by Gouverneur Court Limited Partnership when his pants caught on a brace or bracket. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence claim. The court found that the condition was not defective, but rather open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that the condition was plainly observable and did not constitute a trap or snare.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and ObviousInherently DangerousAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerBoiler RoomFall AccidentCommon-Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 44 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