NY Appellate Division Workers’ Comp Decisions Provide Lessons on Proof, Premises, and Procedure

There were three workers’ compensation decisions posted by the Appellate Division yesterday, 3/26/26:

1. Murad v. Tri-State Groundwater Solutions, LLC.

This case involved a maintenance mechanic who claimed he developed osteoarthritis in his knees over time as a result of repetitive movements. The Board disallowed the claim, and the 3^rd Dept. affirmed. The claimant’s physician did not conclude with sufficient medical probability that the injury was causally related. The claimant’s doctor said it was “possible.” The Board considered the opinion too speculative, and the Appellate Division agreed.

2. Mondesir v. Allied Universal

Here, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision finding that the claimant’s unwitnessed slip and fall was compensable. The claimant, a private security guard, was on-site before his shift started when he slipped and fell down a staircase on his way to his locker to change into his uniform. The Board found the claimant’s injuries, including paralysis, concussion, and an emergency C4-C5 cervical anterior cervical discectomy and fusion were all causally related. The carrier raised various defenses that were discussed and discarded. Defense: Idiopathic fall. Response: No evidence of idiopathic. Defense: Intoxicated. Response: Toxicology report showed within legal limit. Defense: Not within course or scope of employment. Response: Going to change into a uniform on property is within work. Defense: Stairs were not wet. Response: Not sufficient evidence to contradict the claimant’s testimony of a slick surface.

3. Loper v. Suffolk County Water Authority

This is a cautionary tale to make sure to file separate notices of appeal for every Board Panel Decision related to the issue you are seeking to appeal. Here, the claimant’s counsel appealed a 2024 decision finding his client’s claim was time-barred. The claimant contemporaneously filed for full Board review. The Board ultimately granted reconsideration in 2025, and reversed the timeliness issue, but disallowed the claim based on insufficient medical evidence. The claimant’s counsel did not file a new notice of appeal of the 2025 decision, and the 3^rd Dept. held that the 2025 decision was not substantially the same as the 2024 decision, which was the only decision the claimant sought to appeal. Therefore, the 3^rd Dept. rejected any challenge to the 2025 determination. Practice Tip: Make sure to file Notices of Appeal to each Board Decision.