Mysterious Injuries and Missing Forms: The Third Department’s Latest Workers’ Comp Cases

There were three new New York Appellate Division decisions on workers’ compensation cases handed down on April 16, 2026.

Brognano v. County of Oneida

In this case, a phantom head trauma was compensable because there was no way to prove it did not happen at work. The claimant, a county caseworker, was in his cubicle when the co-worker in the next cubicle heard a loud bang. The claimant denied falling but said afterward his head was killing him. The reality was that the claimant had an orbital roof fracture and a traumatic epidural hematoma requiring emergency brain surgery. The surgeon believed that the injury was caused by blunt force trauma to the head, such as that caused by “a fall from standing onto a hard surface” and that it was possible the claimant could lose consciousness and have no memory of it. Because under WCL Sec. 21 (1), there is a presumption that the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment, and considering the mysterious sudden development of the injury, the employer could not produce evidence to rebut the presumption. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision.

Villalba v. Rite Aid Pharmacy

Here, a drugstore cashier died from Covid-19. There was no dispute about it being in the course and scope of employment. The only issue was whether the claimant’s 29-year-old son was entitled to dependency benefits. The Law Judge initially found that the son did not qualify as a dependent, which was reversed by the Board Panel. For an adult child to be eligible for dependency death benefits, the adult child must have a total and permanent incapacity. Here, the son was autistic and required constant care. Although the son has a job as a cashier at the drugstore, the Board looked at other factors such as the son’s mother’s commitment to her son’s care and her inability to speak English. The son testified the decedent rented a room, gave him $300 in cash each month and had him covered under his health insurance. Notwithstanding prior precedent that an adult child dependent needed to show their “incapacity is total and permanent,” the Court chose to find that the loss of the decedent’s financial contribution having “an adverse or detrimental effect on the claimant” was enough to establish dependence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision.

Figueroa v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility

The 3^rd Dept. upheld the Board’s decision to rely on an employer’s expert report without an Independent Medical Examiner (IME) form, specifically the IME-3 form. If there are attached instructions to an IME -5 notice of IME form, technically a physician should file both a cover sheet (IME-4) and a statement that there was a request for information (IME-3) regarding the IME separate and apart from the notice. The Appellate Division found that there was substantial compliance with the IME notice rules because the employer properly filed an IME-5 form with instructions for the exam on notice to all parties, and the IME-4 was filed with the report. There was no prejudice or lack of notice to the claimant.