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. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1999

Claim of Dumont v. Nestle Co.

Claimant sustained a lower back sprain in October 1984, for which workers' compensation benefits were awarded, and the case was closed in February 1985. The claimant subsequently suffered another back injury in March 1990. Dr. Frank Bersani, an orthopedic surgeon, examined the claimant in 1990 and apportioned the disability 50% to the 1990 incident and 50% to previous back problems. In August 1994, Kemper Insurance Company, the carrier for the 1990 injury, sought to reopen the 1990 case based on Dr. Bersani's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reopened the 1984 case, considering Bersani's report a request to reopen, and discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The employer and Associated Indemnity Corporation appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Dr. Bersani's medical report, although not explicitly mentioning the 1984 injury, sufficiently constituted an application to reopen the claim and was filed within seven years of the 1984 injury, thus supporting the discharge of the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSection 25-aApportionment of DisabilityMedical ReportClaim ReopeningStatute of LimitationsInsurance Carrier LiabilityBack InjuryAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neal v. Blue Circle Cement

The claimant, a laborer, suffered a compensable back injury in November 1998 and returned to work after eight months. In January 2002, he sustained another back injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that the January 2002 injury was an aggravation of the prior 1998 injury, assigned disability levels from January 2002 to April 2003, and found no compensable lost time thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence, including medical testimony and MRI comparisons, to support the Board’s determination regarding the aggravation of the injury and the disability levels. The court also upheld the Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical evidence and make credibility determinations, particularly in light of evidence that the claimant exaggerated his symptoms.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravation of InjuryDisability LevelsMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Fave v. St. Lawrence County

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in October 1992. Years later, in November 1996, he was diagnosed with sciatica and a herniated disc, leading to surgery in March 1997. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his back condition was causally related to the 1992 injury. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting medical evidence supporting the causal relationship from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner, despite the employer's consultant expressing doubts. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the employer's request for further record development due to untimeliness.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealAffirmationTimelinessRecord Development
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2003

Claim of Torres v. New York Palace

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim in May 2001, alleging a wrist and back injury from an unwitnessed slip and fall while moving beer cases for his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant fabricated the injury in retaliation for being discharged by his employer on the same day as the alleged accident. Key inconsistencies included claimant's delay in seeking medical attention, hospital records only mentioning a wrist sprain without back injury or a fall, and a disputed timeline for reporting the incident to the employer. Consequently, the decision denying workers' compensation benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjurySlip and FallFabricated ClaimRetaliationEmployee DischargeMedical RecordsWitness CredibilityNotice of InjuryAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2014-06-0040
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

Griffis, Carol v. Five Star Food Service

Carol Griffis filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical benefits from her employer, Five Star Food Service, and its carrier, Key Risk Management, for a back injury sustained on August 21, 2014. Griffis testified to experiencing chest and back pain at work but could not specify a clear incident. Medical records from Summit Medical Center, where Dr. Cori McKean treated her, indicated an unknown cause for pain, while Concentra Medical Centers diagnosed a thoracic sprain but did not confirm work-related causation. The Court found that Griffis failed to present sufficient expert medical evidence to prove the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, as required by Tennessee law. Consequently, the claim for medical benefits was denied.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsCausationScope of EmploymentBack InjuryEmergency RoomMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2017-06-2296 / 46712-2017
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2018

Miles, Jerry v. Amley Logistics, Inc.

Jerry Miles, an employee of Amley Logistics, Inc., filed an expedited hearing request for additional medical benefits, specifically a panel of orthopedic physicians, for alleged right shoulder, neck, and low-back injuries sustained in a June 2017 work accident. Although he initially saw Occ Med providers and then a neurologist, Dr. Steven Graham, for his head injury, Mr. Miles testified that his shoulder and low-back complaints were not adequately addressed by the authorized treating physicians. The employer contended that Mr. Miles did not complain of these issues to the physicians. The Court, finding Mr. Miles credible and noting that Occ Med records did document a 'shoulder strain/sprain' at his first visit, granted his request, ordering Amley to provide a panel of orthopedic specialists.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryLow Back InjuryCredibility AssessmentTreating PhysicianPanel of PhysiciansNeurological EvaluationOrthopedic Specialists
References
2
Case No. 2016-03-0571
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Suisse, Randy v. Bevco Parking Services, InC.

Randy Suisse, an asphalt foreman for Bevco Parking Services, Inc., sought an expedited hearing for a back injury sustained on November 13, 2015, while shoveling asphalt. He had pre-existing back conditions, and the court considered conflicting medical opinions from chiropractor Dr. Pluznyk and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Bolt. The court gave greater weight to Dr. Bolt's opinion, determining that Mr. Suisse likely sustained a thoracic sprain/strain arising from employment but not a T-11 compression fracture or an aggravation of his pre-existing condition. Consequently, the court ordered Bevco to pay for Mr. Suisse's treatment at East Tennessee Medical Group and provide a panel of orthopedic physicians, while denying payment for Dr. Pluznyk's unauthorized treatment. Additionally, Mr. Suisse was awarded twelve weeks of temporary partial disability benefits, as the court found Bevco's testimony regarding accommodation for his restrictions inconsistent and not credible.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingThoracic Sprain/StrainPre-existing ConditionsMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical OpinionsCausationEmployment InjuryOrthopedic Examination
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,363 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