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. 2015-08-0106
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2015

McIntosh, Sarah Kaye v. Randstad

Sarah Kaye Mcintosh, an employee, filed a claim alleging wrist injuries from her work at Randstad. Randstad, the employer, filed a motion to terminate benefits, arguing the claim was not compensable. The Court previously ordered Randstad to provide a panel of orthopedic surgeons and pay temporary disability benefits. Although Ms. Mcintosh selected Dr. Cannon, an orthopedic surgeon, she was instead seen by Dr. Alday, an occupational medicine physician, who opined her injury was not work-related. The Court found Dr. Alday was not an authorized treating physician as Dr. Cannon declined to treat Ms. Mcintosh directly. Therefore, Dr. Alday's opinion on causation did not carry a presumption of correctness. The Court denied Randstad's motion, ordered the continuation of temporary partial disability benefits, and mandated Randstad to provide a new panel of orthopedic surgeons to Ms. Mcintosh.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingBenefit TerminationOrthopedic SurgeonOccupational MedicineCausationMedical PresumptionPanel of PhysiciansTemporary Disability BenefitsCarpal Tunnel Syndrome
References
1
Case No. Docket No. 2018-03-0072; State File No. 86263-2017
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Daniels, Melvin v. Daniels Farms

Melvin Daniels, a part owner and working supervisor of Daniels Farms, suffered multiple injuries in October 2017 due to an air-conditioning pressure switch explosion and subsequent fall from a tractor. He sought temporary disability benefits, which were denied by Daniels Farms's carrier. Despite a medical evaluation by Dr. Salekin indicating total disability and impairment, Mr. Daniels continued to receive benefits and allowances from Daniels Farms, albeit without a salary. The Court found Mr. Daniels failed to demonstrate he was temporarily totally or partially disabled from working, as he continued some supervisory duties and received prior benefits. Therefore, his claim for temporary disability benefits was denied.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityExpedited HearingFarm InjuryTractor AccidentChemical ExposureRotator Cuff RepairMedical ImpairmentAverage Weekly WageBenefits Continuation
References
3
Case No. 2024-50-2258
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

SUAREZ, KENIA LORENZO v. WCSC TENNESSEE, LLC

Ms. Kenia Lorenzo Suarez, a home health provider, sustained a work-related injury on August 7, 2023. She sought additional temporary disability and specific medical benefits at a second expedited hearing. The Court found her likely entitled to continuing medical treatment but not to additional temporary disability benefits or the specific requested out-of-state orthopedic treatment. The decision emphasized that Dr. Kenneth Sykes remains her authorized treating physician. Consequently, her claim for temporary disability benefits was denied, but WCSC was ordered to continue providing reasonably necessary medical treatment.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsAuthorized PhysicianLumbar SprainRadiculopathyGabapentin ReactionPhysician PanelMaximum Medical Improvement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Claim of Chee

The claimant was laid off in March 1999 and began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In July 1999, the employer offered to rehire him to his previous position at the same hourly rate of $12.44. The claimant rejected this offer, leading the employer to contest his right to continued benefits. An administrative hearing and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that the claimant was entitled to continued benefits, citing Labor Law § 593 (2) (d). The Board found that the prevailing wage for similar positions in the locality was $14.88 per hour, exceeding the offered salary by more than 10%, which constituted good cause for rejecting the job offer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was rational and supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment benefitsjob refusalprevailing wagegood causeLabor Lawadministrative appealsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewreemploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
4
Case No. 2018-06-1822
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2021

Reichenberger, Donald v. Cumberland Real Estate Services, Inc.

Mr. Reichenberger, a landscaper, sustained a low-back injury in 2016. His employer, Cumberland Real Estate Services, Inc., accepted the claim for an L3-4 disc herniation. Following a failed L5-S1 fusion, Mr. Reichenberger sought authorization for a multi-level L2-ilium fusion surgery and additional temporary disability benefits. The Court denied the extensive multi-level fusion due to conflicting medical opinions regarding its necessity and likelihood of success. However, it found the aggravation of his pre-existing L5-S1 condition and the subsequent failed fusion to be compensable. As a result, the Court awarded past and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits and mandated continued medical treatment for the L5-S1 failed fusion, instructing the employer to provide a new panel of neurosurgeons if the current treating physician declines further care.

Expedited HearingMulti-level Fusion SurgeryLow Back InjuryL5-S1 PseudoarthrosisTemporary Partial Disability BenefitsMedical Necessity DisputeCausation of InjuryPre-existing Condition AggravationNeurosurgeon OpinionIndependent Medical Evaluation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2006

Fortis Benefits v. Cantu

Vanessa Cantu suffered severe injuries in a car accident and sued multiple parties. Her medical insurer, Fortis Benefits, intervened, seeking subrogation for medical benefits paid under the policy. After Cantu settled with the defendants, Fortis pursued recovery from Cantu. Cantu argued that the equitable "made whole" doctrine barred Fortis's claim because her total losses exceeded the settlement amount plus the benefits Fortis paid. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Cantu. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "made whole" doctrine does not override an insurer's clear contractual subrogation rights. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Fortis's claims against Ford due to a pretrial agreement.

Insurance SubrogationMade Whole DoctrineContractual SubrogationEquitable SubrogationERISATexas LawInsurance Policy InterpretationPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSettlement Proceeds
References
28
Case No. 2016-06-0773
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Amofa, Anthony v. Yates Services

Anthony Amofa, an employee of Yates Services, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical benefits after sustaining a back injury at work on January 2, 2016. Despite initial denials from Premise Health providers, Mr. Amofa continued treatment with his personal physician, Dr. John Adewumi, who opined the injury was work-related. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Kenneth M. Switzer, found Dr. Adewumi's opinion more credible due to its thoroughness and familiarity with Mr. Amofa's history, rebutting the presumption of correctness given to Premise Health's opinion. The Court granted Mr. Amofa's request for medical benefits, ordering Yates or its carrier to provide past and continuing reasonable and necessary medical treatment and reimburse specific co-pays for prescriptions and physical therapy. The case is set for a Scheduling Hearing on March 6, 2017.

Work-Related InjuryMedical Causation DisputePhysician CredibilityAggravation of Preexisting ConditionExpedited Hearing OrderReimbursement of Medical ExpensesAuthorized Treating Physician AppointmentBurden of Proof EmployeeTennessee Workers' Compensation LawMusculoskeletal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kraft v. Felder

The plaintiff, a plumber disabled by rheumatoid arthritis in 1974, seeks pension benefits from a fund established by the Plumbing Industry Board. The defendants, the pension fund chairman, trustees, and union local officers, resist the claim, citing a requirement of fifteen years continuous employment which the plaintiff failed to meet due to a three-year break in service (1962-1965) when he worked for the City of New York. This continuous service requirement was amended in 1966, after the plaintiff's service break, and the court found its application to him arbitrary and unreasonable, especially given his involuntary disability. The decision highlights that denying benefits to employees prevented from meeting final eligibility requirements through no fault of their own, after substantial contributions, is arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Pension rightsSummary judgmentContinuous service requirementBreak in serviceEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Arbitrary and capricious standardDisability benefitsPlumbing Industry BoardUnion pension fundFederal jurisdiction
References
5
Case No. 2017-05-0082
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2017

Emory, Wendy v. Epic Group, LP

Wendy Emory, a certified nursing assistant, suffered a low back injury while assisting a patient at an Epic Group nursing home. She sought medical and temporary disability benefits, which were initially denied or not fully provided by her employer and its insurer, Amerisure Ins. Key disputes included Ms. Emory's entitlement to TTD benefits after being taken off work by providers at Seven Springs, and Epic's failure to provide a valid panel of orthopedic physicians. The Court found in favor of Ms. Emory for TTD benefits for a specified period and ordered continued medical treatment with Dr. Douglas Wilburn, the authorized treating physician. The Court also assessed a 25% penalty against Epic for late TTD payments and referred the issue of the invalid physician panel for further penalty consideration. Mileage benefits were denied, and attorney fees are to be determined.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPenalty AssessmentPhysician PanelChronic PainLumbar InjuryNurse PractitionerOrthopedics
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,794 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