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

Roberts v. Gross

The case involves an appeal by a podiatrist (defendant) from an order that dismissed their affirmative defense based on the Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice. The core issue is the interpretation of “medical malpractice” as used in CPLR 214-a, specifically whether it applies to malpractice actions against podiatrists. The court examines other statutes enacted by chapter 109 of the Laws of 1975, which defined “medical malpractice” in the context of licensed physicians and hospitals. Based on these related statutes, the court concludes that CPLR 214-a's abbreviated Statute of Limitations applies only to physicians and hospitals, not to podiatrists. Therefore, the order dismissing the defendant's affirmative defense was affirmed.

MalpracticePodiatryStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214-aStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical Malpractice InsuranceProfessional RegulationAppellate ReviewJudicial District
References
12
Case No. ADJ9298433
Regular
Mar 28, 2017

ERNEST ALEXANDER vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC; LOWES; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal of an order for additional QME panels. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, noting the petition was unverified and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The WCJ found good cause existed for the additional panels due to disputed body parts and the limitations of the initial podiatrist's specialty.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationunverified petitionForm 31.7good causeQME panels
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McMillan v. Dodsworth

The claimant, a podiatrist's assistant, was attacked by her sister with a hammer at her workplace. The employer was aware of previous disputes and had installed locks for security, though the doors were unlocked during the incident. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits, finding the injury compensable due to a work-related risk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the assault stemmed from purely personal differences and was unrelated to the claimant's employment. The court also found insufficient evidence to establish a dangerous work environment, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

Assault at workplacePersonal disputeCompensable injuryAppellate reviewLack of substantial evidenceEmployer liabilityWorkplace safetyClaim dismissedReversal
References
4
Case No. ADJ7817116, ADJ7875974
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

Karen Swanson vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's claim that the prior award of medical treatment lacked substantial medical evidence. The Board affirmed the necessity of a Nurse Case Manager, a power-assisted wheelchair, podiatrist visits, and a consultation with Dr. Kodama based on stipulations and medical opinion. However, the Board found insufficient evidence for other requested treatments like physical therapy, home modifications, housekeeping, a wheelchair-accessible van, and social worker visits. Jurisdiction was reserved for these deferred issues pending further development of the medical record, including a home modifications consultation.

WCABAmended Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsiderationsubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 4604.5Nurse Case Managerpower-assisted wheelchairpodiatristDr. Kodamadysphagia
References
17
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Arnold Gunness

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his claim for benefits regarding injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness alleged these injuries were causally related to a June 2020 workplace incident. The Board found that he failed to provide competent medical evidence of a causal relationship, noting inconsistencies in his accounts to medical providers and issues with the expert opinions presented. Specifically, a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded as outside his specialty, and a physiatrist's opinion lacked a rational basis regarding the mechanism of injury. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence and within the Board's authority to reject the claimant's medical evidence of causation.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryLeft Knee InjuryFoot Fracture
References
7
Case No. 534239
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Lorna Lyman

Lorna Lyman, a motorized snow operator, sustained lower back and right foot injuries in January 2018. Her workers' compensation claim was accepted and established for a work-related right foot injury, leading to surgery. Medical evaluations by treating podiatrist Carrie O'Neil and orthopedic surgeon Robert Karpman initially assessed schedule loss of use. However, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that her injury was amenable to a nonschedule classification. This decision was based on findings of a chronic painful condition and marked permanent partial medical impairment, supported by substantial medical evidence of chronic pain and severe swelling despite exhausted treatment options. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Nonschedule classificationPermanent partial disabilityChronic painFoot injurySchedule loss of useMedical impairmentIndependent medical examinationTreating physicianAppellate reviewSubstantial evidence
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01889
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Kotok v. Victoria's Secret

Claimant Brenda Kotok, a sales specialist for Victoria's Secret, sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a right ankle injury in March 2017 when she slipped and fell on a flooded bathroom floor at work. The self-insured employer controverted the claim, arguing a lack of causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for the right ankle, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including medical opinions from a podiatrist and an orthopedist, supported the finding that the injury was compensable and causally related, despite conflicting testimony regarding the incident's occurrence. The Court gives great deference to the Board's evaluation of proof, particularly on causation.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjurySlip and FallCausationSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion ConflictWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSales SpecialistWorkplace Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello

This is a dissenting opinion challenging the majority's conclusion that an association of New York Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) lacks standing to sue the Commissioner of Health. The CRNAs challenged new 'Guidelines' which stipulate that CRNAs should provide services in office-based surgery only under supervision by a physician, dentist, or podiatrist 'qualified by law, regulation or hospital appointment to perform and supervise the administration of the anesthesia.' The dissent argues that the Guidelines, though presented as recommendations, are effectively regulations that will severely injure CRNAs' employment opportunities by requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist, making CRNAs redundant due to cost-prohibitive duplication of services. The dissenting judge criticizes the majority for deeming the CRNAs' evidence of economic harm as 'speculation' despite extensive factual showings from affidavits, asserting that precedent supports standing in such cases.

CRNA supervisionStandingGuidelines as regulationsEconomic injuryNurse anesthetistsAnesthesiologist supervisionOffice-based surgeryHealthcare regulationsJudicial dissentPhysician qualification
References
4
Case No. 534239
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

Matter of Lyman v. New York State Canal Corp. C/O N.Y. Power Auth.

Lorna Lyman, a motorized snow operator, sustained a work-related right foot injury in January 2018. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits led to a dispute regarding the classification of her permanent impairment. The self-insured employer appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's (WCB) decision that classified claimant's injury as a nonschedule permanent partial disability, arguing for a schedule loss of use award instead. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the WCB's determination. The court found that substantial medical evidence, including testimonies from the treating podiatrist and an independent orthopedic surgeon, supported the Board's conclusion that claimant suffered from a permanent and chronic painful condition with severe swelling and minimal improvement after exhausting treatment, thus qualifying for a nonschedule classification under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w).

Nonschedule ClassificationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseChronic Pain ConditionFoot InjuryAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment GuidelinesSubstantial Evidence ReviewMaximum Medical ImprovementPosterior Tibial Tendon Injury
References
6
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 10 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