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
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the claimant's cervical spine injury claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 because it was filed more than two years after the 2010 work-related accident, which initially caused back and leg injuries. Although the claimant argued that a carrier's payment for a 2010 CT scan constituted an advance payment of compensation, the court disagreed, noting the CT scan did not reveal neck abnormalities at the time and subsequent treatment focused on other injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the neck injury claim was untimely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimNeck InjuryBack InjuryAdvance Payment of CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate DivisionNew YorkWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Johnson v. T.L. Cannon Management

Claimant, a broiler cook, allegedly sustained a work-related injury in February 2012 but delayed applying for workers' compensation benefits until April 2013. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, citing claimant's failure to provide timely notice to the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Court upheld the Board's determination, finding no grounds to overturn it. The Court emphasized the requirement for timely written notice of injury within 30 days, noting that while exceptions exist, excusing such failures remains within the Board's discretion, and the 14-month delay, coupled with the supervisor's lack of recall regarding an injury report, supported the Board's findings.

Workers’ CompensationTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident ReportingCredibility DeterminationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimAdministrative AppealWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 532391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Claimant, Rebecca Richman, appealed three decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her claim for a work-related right shoulder injury. She alleged a fall at work on January 19, 2018, but did not seek medical treatment for 19 months. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Board reversed, finding that Richman failed to submit sufficient, credible medical evidence to demonstrate a causally-related injury and denied her claim. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's finding of no causally-related injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCausation (Medical)Shoulder InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyBoard ReversalAppellate Division ReviewBurden of ProofCredibility of EvidenceOsteoarthritis DiagnosisDelayed Medical Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1999

Claim of Curtis v. Village of Lynbrook

The Village of Lynbrook and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision affirming that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. The claimant, a detective on disability leave, was involved in an off-duty incident where he attempted an arrest for a vehicle violation, leading to him being shot. The employer argued that the claimant was unfit for duty and that his injuries were not work-related, also citing his blood alcohol level. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant was authorized to make arrests and that his intoxication was not the sole cause of the injury.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryLine of Duty InjuryOff-Duty ConductPolice OfficerIntoxication DefenseScope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardNassau County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2005

Claim of Jones v. New York State Department of Correction

The claimant, a bus driver for the New York City Department of Correction, sustained work-related injuries to her right shoulder and back in September 1998. After surgery in 1999, she sought treatment in 2001 for left shoulder pain, alleging it was a consequential injury from favoring her right shoulder. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related consequential injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to make its own factual findings and resolve conflicting medical evidence. The Board found the self-insured employer’s medical consultant more credible than the claimant’s physician, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionCausal RelationshipConsequential InjuryCredibility of WitnessesConflicting Medical EvidenceShoulder InjuriesBus DriverNew York City Department of CorrectionAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2003

Beesmer v. Village of DeRuyter Fire Department

In 1975, the decedent, a volunteer firefighter, suffered a heart attack and continuously received workers' compensation benefits until his death in 2002. His claimant applied for death benefits, alleging a causal link between the 1975 injury and his death. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits after denying the employer's request for a second adjournment to depose treating physicians, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The court found substantial evidence supporting the causal relationship between the heart attack and death, noting that a work-related injury need not be the sole cause of death. Additionally, the court upheld the WCLJ's denial of the adjournment, as the employer failed to provide a sufficient excuse for not scheduling depositions or serving subpoenas during the initial adjournment period.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationshipHeart AttackCongestive Heart FailureAdjournment DenialTreating Physician DepositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionVolunteer Firefighter
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2001

Claim of Oberson v. Bureau of Ferry Aviation & Transportation

The claimant was terminated from his employment as a marine oiler after a physical altercation with his supervisor in January 1993. He sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming a compensable psychological injury from the altercation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim due to the claimant's failure to timely notify the employer of his injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Although the employer had actual knowledge of the altercation and termination, there was no indication they had actual knowledge of a psychological injury stemming from the altercation until 1999, approximately six years later. The Board's determination that the employer did not have timely notice and was prejudiced by the delay was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation NoticePsychological Injury ClaimTimeliness of NoticeEmployer PrejudiceActual KnowledgeWorkplace AltercationEmployment TerminationWorkers' Compensation Board AffirmationAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 26,293 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