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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This workers’ compensation death case addresses two main issues: whether death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks, and whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum. The employee, Goldie Jones, was killed in the course of her employment in 1991. Her husband, Darrell Jones, filed for death benefits. The trial court limited the benefits to 400 weeks and refused a lump sum. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the 400-week limitation for permanent disability does not apply to death benefits, which should continue until the maximum total benefit is reached or dependency ceases. However, the Court affirmed the denial of a lump sum, finding the plaintiff failed to prove it was in his best interest or that he could wisely manage the funds. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine reasonable attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsDependent SupportLump Sum DenialStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawT.C.A. 50-6-210400-week LimitRemandAttorney's FeesSurviving Spouse
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning the duration of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Act. Employee Vivian Alvina Dorsett suffered a spider bite injury and subsequent chronic conditions, leading Wausau Insurance Company to pay TTD benefits. The trial court ordered continued TTD payments beyond the statutory 400-week cap, as Dorsett had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this decision, affirming that the 400-week "maximum total benefit" limitation explicitly applies to TTD benefits, with permanent total disability being the sole exemption. The Court concluded that it lacks the authority to alter statutory definitions, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the 400-week TTD limit.

Temporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementWorkers' Compensation ActStatutory Interpretation400-Week LimitationSpider Bite InjuryGenetic Enzyme DeficiencyPyoderma GangrenosumInterlocutory AppealRemand
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a workers' compensation case involving Billy Gray, an employee of Cullom Machine, Tool & Die, Inc. The trial court had erred in awarding temporary total benefits to Gray, who continued working post-injury and later operated his own business. The court also found error in limiting the employer's liability for permanent total disability to 60% of 400 weeks instead of until Gray's social security eligibility. Additionally, the trial court improperly awarded 180 weeks of lump-sum benefits, exceeding the statutory limit of 100 weeks, and failed to recalculate weekly benefits. The case is remanded for re-determination of benefits and other proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilitySecond Injury FundLump Sum BenefitsApportionment of LiabilityRotator Cuff InjuryVocational DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 1998

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed on September 9, 1998, which ruled that the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. This denial was based on Labor Law § 591 (5), a 1996 amendment that limits unemployment benefits when a claimant also receives workers' compensation benefits exceeding their average weekly wage. The claimant contended that the statutory limitation should consider the pre-injury weekly wage used for workers' compensation. However, the Board, and subsequently the court, found no textual basis to interpret 'average weekly wage' in Labor Law § 591 (5) differently from its definition in Labor Law former § 590 (2). Consequently, the Board's conclusion was affirmed.

Unemployment benefitsWorkers' compensation offsetStatutory interpretationAverage weekly wage calculationBenefit eligibilityLabor Law § 591(5)Appeal Board decisionJudicial reviewAffirmed decision
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02959
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Samuel Weekes, an employee, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at a construction site managed by Tishman Technologies Corporation. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied Weekes's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, also denying Weekes's motion for leave to renew. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that Tishman could be considered a statutory agent of the owner due to its control over safety. The court also found that Weekes's activity was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, thereby denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The denial of Weekes's motion for leave to renew was affirmed, and part of the appeal from the November 4, 2020 order was dismissed as academic.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationScaffold SafetyElevation HazardSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityTriable Issues of Fact
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 13-07-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2009

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case concerns an appeal by Old Republic Insurance Company against a district court's judgment favoring Edward Weeks, who suffered a compensable workplace injury. Weeks, a truck driver, experienced a severe back injury and alleged repetitive trauma from his job, despite initial denials from the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and its appeals panel. The district court overturned the TWCC panel's decision and found in favor of Weeks, prompting Old Republic's appeal challenging jurisdiction, evidence admissibility, and sufficiency of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, confirming that Weeks properly exhausted administrative remedies and that the evidence supported his claims of both acute and repetitive trauma injuries. The court also upheld the district court's conclusion regarding Old Republic's liability for Weeks's medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryRepetitive TraumaSubject-Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewExpert TestimonyLay Witness TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceMedical Expenses
References
27
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04073
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Czeslaw Jagiello had an established workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease that became disabling in 2017, in addition to a prior claim for World Trade Center site injuries, under which he received $400 weekly in temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute revolved around the amount of additional benefits for the occupational disease claim, with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially determining $480.71 weekly but capping the concurrent award at $801.32 weekly, leading to an award of $401.32 weekly for the occupational disease. Jagiello argued the statutory cap should be $870.61 weekly, thus seeking $470.61 weekly. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, clarifying that while the combined weekly benefit was statutorily capped at $870.61 under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6), the appropriate temporary partial disability award, being two-thirds of the difference between pre- and post-accident average weekly wages, was correctly limited to $801.32, which was two-thirds of his average weekly wages at the date of disablement.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTemporary Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory Maximum RatesAverage Weekly WageWorld Trade Center ClaimAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsBenefit Calculation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,359 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