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

Lyublinsky v. Barnhart

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
References
3
Case No. 2015-07-0467
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2016

Parrish, Robert v. Digit Dirt Worx

This case involves an expedited hearing initiated by employee Robert Parrish, who sought additional temporary disability benefits, arguing that his weekly compensation rate was incorrectly calculated by his employer, Digit Dirt Worx. Mr. Parrish claimed he worked only twenty weeks, not the twenty-three weeks calculated by Digit Dirt Worx. The employer, Digit Dirt Worx, argued the request for an expedited hearing was untimely and that their compensation rate calculation was correct, utilizing a period of twenty-three weeks and five days, which resulted in a higher rate for Mr. Parrish than his own calculations. The Court addressed the timeliness issue, excusing the ten-day late filing due to Mr. Parrish's clear intent to prosecute the claim. However, on the merits, the Court denied Mr. Parrish's claim, finding insufficient evidence to support his argument for a different compensation rate and concluding that Digit's calculation was consistent with Tennessee law.

Expedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsWeekly Compensation RateWage CalculationTimeliness of FilingDispute Certification NoticeAverage Weekly WageFortuitous CircumstanceTruck Driver EmploymentFile Review Decision
References
7
Case No. 2015-06-0867
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2016

Lunsford, Shannon v. Deem First

Shannon Lunsford, an employee, sought workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Deem First, and its insurance carrier, Amerisure, following a work-related injury on July 22, 2015. Mr. Lunsford requested an expedited hearing to address his entitlement to an evaluation for a permanent impairment rating for a facial injury, a panel of physicians for a low back injury and a left knee injury, additional temporary total disability benefits, and a recalculation of his average weekly wage. The Court granted Mr. Lunsford's request for a panel of orthopedic specialists for his left knee and an evaluation for permanent facial impairment. However, the Court denied his request for a new panel of back specialists that excluded Dr. West and found him not entitled to temporary total disability benefits beyond December 24, 2015. Deem First was also ordered to provide a compliant wage statement for a 'like employee' to calculate Mr. Lunsford's compensation rate.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsExpedited HearingFacial Injury ImpairmentLeft Knee InjuryLow Back InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly Wage CalculationPanel of PhysiciansMedical CausationStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1982

In re the Claim of Peat

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a reduction in her unemployment benefits. The reduction was made under Labor Law § 600(7) due to her receipt of Social Security benefits. The court, citing precedents Matter of Cullen and Rivera v Patino, ruled that Social Security benefits derived from a non-base period employer should not offset unemployment benefits from a different base period employer. As the claimant's Social Security benefits vested from prior employment, the board's decision to reduce her unemployment rate was reversed. The case was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment BenefitsSocial Security OffsetLabor Law 600(7)Benefit Rate ReductionPrior EmploymentBase Period EmployerAdministrative AppealRemittitur
References
2
Case No. 2017-08-1205
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2018

Washington, John v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.

John Washington, an employee of UPS Ground Freight, Inc., requested additional medical and temporary disability benefits for a September 7, 2017 work injury. UPS maintained it had paid all entitled benefits and had provided multiple panels of neurologists, which Mr. Washington largely rejected due to subjective concerns. The Court found that UPS had complied with its statutory duty to provide physicians, but Mr. Washington had not complied with his duty to choose one. The Court ordered UPS to allow Mr. Washington to choose another neurologist from the previously provided panels, warning that benefits could remain suspended if he failed to comply. The Court denied Mr. Washington's requests for payment of unauthorized emergency room bills, personal care assistant payments, additional temporary disability benefits, and adjustments to his wage rate calculation, concluding that his refusal to accept medical services justified the suspension of temporary benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityExpedited HearingNeurology EvaluationPost-Concussion SyndromeWage Rate CalculationUnauthorized TreatmentPhysician PanelEmployee Non-Compliance
References
6
Case No. ADJ949225 (MON 0333849)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Muriel Lazarus vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

In this case, applicant Muriel Lazarus is seeking reconsideration of a denial of benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The original decision found she failed to prove her subsequent injury met the 35% permanent disability threshold. Lazarus argues her rating, when calculated using the Combined Values Chart, meets the threshold, while the SIBTF disputes this. The Board granted reconsideration, noting insufficient evidence on the pre-adjustment rating of her permanent disability. The matter is remanded to further develop the record on this specific issue.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPermanent Disability ThresholdCombined Values ChartStraight Subtraction MethodCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryReport and RecommendationFurther Development of RecordPre-adjustment Rating
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

Claim of Caiazza v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant, a former machinist, developed skin cancer in 1990 and later lung and brain cancers in 2000, attributed to occupational exposure. Following his retirement in 2001, the employer conceded the lung and brain cancers were consequential to the initial skin cancer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant permanently totally disabled and awarded weekly benefits of $300, based on the original skin cancer disablement date of February 27, 1986. The claimant sought Workers' Compensation Board review, arguing for an April 24, 2000 disablement date (diagnosis of lung/brain cancers) to receive higher benefits of $400/week. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the claimant's prior stipulation to modify the original claim for consequential injuries and established law that such awards are measured by rates at the time of the original injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable to rely on the claimant's agreement and that the award rate was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDate of DisablementBenefit Rate CalculationConsequential InjurySkin CancerLung CancerBrain CancerPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2019-04-0270
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Wright, Tracy v. Joshua Cooper d/b/a J&K Improvements

Tracy Wright, an employee, sought temporary total disability benefits and to establish Kylie Cooper's liability as a partner against Joshua Cooper, d/b/a J&K Improvements, an uninsured employer. The Court awarded Mr. Wright temporary total disability benefits of $2,459.47, calculated at a rate of $419.91, for the period of August 29 through October 8, 2020. However, his request for further temporary disability beyond this date was denied due to insufficient medical evidence. Additionally, the Court found no substantial proof to hold Mrs. Cooper liable as a business partner. Mr. Wright was deemed eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employer’s Fund for the awarded past temporary total disability.

Temporary Total Disability BenefitsUninsured EmployerEmployee Compensation RateWork-Related InjuryEmployer LiabilityMedical Evidence SufficiencyExpedited HearingWorkers’ Compensation ClaimsTennessee LawFoot Fracture
References
3
Case No. ADJ8083715
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

KAREN WHISNANT vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether apportionment applies when calculating the subsequent permanent disability threshold for SIBTF benefits. Applicant Karen Whisnant's eligibility for SIBTF benefits hinged on this interpretation, with the WCJ initially finding her eligible based on a 42% disability without apportionment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's April 5, 2022 Findings of Fact but clarified that apportionment is not considered when determining the 5% or 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold, citing precedents like Bookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. Consequently, the Board's decision ensures that the applicant's subsequent injury rating of 42% (unapportioned) qualifies her for benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4751eligibility thresholdWCJreconsiderationFindings of FactBookout
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 12,824 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