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

Bryant v. New York Transit Authority

The case concerns cross-appeals from decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a bus driver's involuntary retirement and lost earnings. The claimant suffered a seizure and physical injuries, leading to disability retirement. The Board initially found involuntary retirement due to permanent partial disability but shifted the burden to the claimant to prove subsequent lost earnings were causally related to his disability after May 13, 2004, concluding his failure to seek work caused the loss. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred in shifting the burden to the claimant, as an involuntary retirement due to a permanent partial disability infers post-retirement lost earnings are due to that disability. The court emphasized that merely not seeking work post-retirement does not defeat this inference or shift the burden. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Involuntary RetirementPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Earnings CausationBurden of Proof ShiftRebuttable PresumptionFailure to Seek WorkAppellate ReversalRemittiturBus Driver DisabilitySeizure-related Injuries
References
11
Case No. 13-03-038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

Tina Bruno v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas

This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by Tina Bruno, individually and as natural guardian of Charles Bruno, deceased, and Jasime Bruno, a minor, against Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas. The appellants contested the trial court's finding that Charles Bruno was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his death. They argued the evidence was legally and factually insufficient and that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding regarding Charles Bruno's employment status at the time of the incident and that the burden of proof was not impermissibly shifted.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentDeath BenefitsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. BTR Sealing Systems North America-Tennessee Operations

This workers' compensation case involves Donald Fitzgerald, an employee, seeking to compel BTR Sealing Systems North America to cover shoulder joint replacement surgery for a 1997 work injury. Despite a prior settlement leaving future medical benefits open, BTR refused the surgery, arguing lack of causation. The trial court sided with Fitzgerald, ordering the treatment. On appeal, BTR contended the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof and that evidence did not support causation. The appellate court affirmed, finding no burden shifting and sufficient evidence to link the surgery need to the original 1997 injury, compelling BTR to provide the recommended medical treatment.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryMedical TreatmentCausationDegenerative ArthritisJoint ReplacementBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence
References
9
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co.

The Hannans sued Alltel Publishing Co. for negligence and breach of contract after their advertisement and business listings were omitted from a telephone directory, claiming significant loss of business and emotional distress. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Alltel, reasoning the Hannans could not prove damages, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal, clarifying the state's burden-shifting standard for summary judgment motions. The Court reiterated that a moving party must either affirmatively negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or demonstrate that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element at trial, rejecting a 'put up or shut up' approach. It concluded that Alltel's evidence, including the Hannans' increased gross income in the year of omission and their inability to precisely quantify damages, did not sufficiently negate the existence of damages, thus failing to shift the burden of proof to the Hannans.

Summary JudgmentBurden of ProofNegligence ClaimBreach of ContractLoss of ProfitsDamages ProofAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseMaterial FactGenuine Issue for Trial
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henneberry v. ING Capital Advisors

Virginia Henneberry was terminated from her employment with ING Furman Selz Asset Management, LLC and ING Capital Advisors, LLC. She initiated arbitration, challenging the burden of proof and arguing arbitrator misconduct after the arbitrator reversed his initial ruling on the burden of proof. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division upheld the arbitration award. This court affirmed those decisions, finding that the arbitrator's procedural error in shifting the burden of proof did not deprive Henneberry of a fundamentally fair arbitration or exceed his authority, especially since he concluded the employer would have prevailed regardless of who bore the burden.

ArbitrationEmployment AgreementTerminationBurden of ProofArbitrator MisconductDue ProcessFundamental FairnessCPLR 7511Judicial ReviewAppellate Practice
References
4
Case No. ADJ8120854
Regular
Aug 29, 2017

MENG TU vs. GLOBE COMMUNICATIONS, SUSSEX INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a prior award to lien claimant Rehab Solutions. The Board found that lien claimant bears the burden to prove the reasonableness and necessity of its services, and this burden was not met. Partial payments by the defendant did not constitute authorization or shift the burden of proof, and the utilization review denial of the key treatment remained unchallenged by appeal. Therefore, lien claimant is entitled to no further payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardUtilization ReviewMedical TreatmentReasonableness and NecessityBurden of ProofLabor Code Section 4909Official Medical Fee Schedule
References
8
Case No. ADJ10257811
Regular
Dec 18, 2020

JORGE ANDRADE vs. CECILIO ARREDONDO TERREZAS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's decision finding the applicant was not an employee at the time of injury, concluding he failed to meet his burden of proof. The applicant did not provide evidence establishing an employment relationship with the labor contractor or its associated individuals, and evidence indicated he paid for his own transportation. A dissenting opinion argued the board and judge incorrectly shifted the burden of proof, stating the applicant is presumed an employee and the employer must prove otherwise. The dissent would have rescinded the decision for failure to meet the employer's burden.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderEmployee StatusLabor ContractorBurden of ProofEmployment RelationshipPresumption of EmployeeLabor CodeRebuttal of Presumption
References
5
Case No. ADJ10341378, ADJ10341435
Regular
Mar 23, 2018

MARIA AKA MARTHA PUGA AKA GONZALEZ vs. UNITED ONE STAFFING, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves an interpreter service provider petitioning for reconsideration after an administrative law judge denied their request for costs and sanctions against the defendant. The judge found the interpreter service failed to meet their burden of proof regarding the defendant's liability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the judge misapplied the burden of proof. Specifically, the Board determined that the defendant's failure to pay an interpreter's invoice within 60 days, without objection, violated a regulation and shifted the burden to the defendant to prove their delay was due to excusable neglect, which they failed to do. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgePetition for SanctionsLabor Code Section 5811Interpreter FeesMandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseAdministrative Director Rule 9795.4
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,705 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