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. M2003-02647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2005

Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association v. Centre Insurance Company

The Tennessee Insurance Guaranty Association (TIGA) sued Centre Insurance Company, seeking to be exonerated from workers' compensation obligations it assumed after Commercial Compensation Insurance Company's insolvency. TIGA contended that Centre was liable due to its predecessor's name appearing on Form I-1 certificates of insurance, despite Commercial Compensation issuing the actual policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to Centre, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court distinguished the case from controlling precedent, holding that TIGA, as a statutory successor to an insolvent insurer, could not assert claims against Centre that the insolvent insurer itself did not possess. The court emphasized that TIGA inherits the rights and obligations of the insolvent insurer, and since Commercial Compensation Insurance Company had no claim against BICO/Centre, TIGA also had none.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Company InsolvencyGuaranty AssociationsSummary Judgment AffirmationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy CertificationSuccessor Rights and ObligationsEmployer Insurance LiabilityTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
9
Case No. 11-06-00214-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

Centre Insurance Company, Successor to Business Insurance Company v. Carl Pollitt

This workers' compensation dispute involves Carl Pollitt, who received benefits from Centre Insurance Company after an on-the-job injury. Despite reaching statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 1997, Pollitt underwent multiple spinal surgeries and sought an increased impairment rating, claiming a substantial change in his condition. The trial court granted his motion, raising his impairment rating to twenty-six percent. On appeal, Centre Insurance Company argued that impairment ratings cannot be reevaluated after the statutory MMI date. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a substantial change in condition must occur before the statutory MMI date, thus rendering judgment that Pollitt take nothing.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory MMISpinal SurgeryJudicial ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas LawAppellate CourtSummary Judgment
References
4
Case No. 03-04-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2005

Skilled Craftsman of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director

The case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which identifies private employers with high injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc., designated as hazardous, argued that the program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety standards already covered by federal law, leading to duplicative regulation. The district court initially upheld the state program, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the Texas program's practical effect is to coerce employers into changing behavior, thus conflicting with Congress's intent to avoid subjecting workers and employers to duplicative regulation. Consequently, the court held that the Hazardous Employer Program, as it applies to private employers, is preempted by the OSH Act.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkers' CompensationState LawFederal LawOccupational SafetyHealth StandardsDuplicative RegulationTexas Court of Appeals
References
7
Case No. ADJ17686288
Regular
May 07, 2025

VICTOR CRUZ vs. CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT, INC.; PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of further and continuing medical treatment for applicant Victor Cruz at the Centre for Neuro Skills. The defendant argued that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction due to a timely RFA denial. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the defendant failed to present substantial medical evidence to justify the discontinuation of previously authorized treatment. The decision emphasized the principle that once treatment is authorized, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a change in circumstances to cease treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVictor CruzChannel DevelopmentInc.Preferred Professional Insurance CompanyOmaha NationalAdjudication Number ADJ17686288Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJ
References
8
Case No. SRO 112972
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

STELLA JUAREZ vs. ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, NELSON STAFFING, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY by REM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) has the right to seek contribution from Centre Insurance Company for workers' compensation benefits paid to an applicant with a cumulative trauma injury. CIGA's claim is not barred by the one-year limitation period for employer contribution claims under Labor Code section 5500.5(e), as CIGA is not an employer and Centre is considered "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9). Therefore, the Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration and reversed the arbitrator's decision, awarding CIGA contribution from Centre.

CIGAContributionReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderLabor Code section 5500.5Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)Cumulative TraumaGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerOther Insurance
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centre Insurance Co. v. Pollitt

Carl Pollitt, an employee, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits from Centre Insurance Company. After reaching statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) on March 11, 1997, Pollitt underwent multiple spinal surgeries and sought an increased impairment rating, claiming a substantial change in his condition. The trial court granted his motion, increasing his impairment rating to twenty-six percent. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that a substantial change in condition must occur before the statutory MMI date for an impairment rating to be reevaluated. Therefore, the trial court lacked authority to find a substantial change of condition or increase Pollitt's impairment rating, as his alleged change occurred after the statutory MMI date.

Workers' Compensation DisputeImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory MMISubstantial Change of ConditionAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial Review ScopeSpinal SurgeryTexas Workers' Compensation ActIncome Benefits
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07121
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Matter of Dyer v. Centre St. Sys. Inc.

Rudolph Dyer, a claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits for prostate cancer allegedly related to his work at the World Trade Center site. Zurich American Insurance Company, identified as the likely workers' compensation carrier, disputed coverage and the claimant's involvement in WTC clean-up. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ruled in favor of the claimant regarding WTC clean-up and found Zurich to be the carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board denied Zurich's application for review due to its failure to serve all necessary parties and modified the WCLJ's decision to find the claim an accidental injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, declining to review the merits of Zurich's carrier status or the WTC clean-up issue as these were not properly before the court.

World Trade CenterWorkers' Compensation BenefitsProstate CancerInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewFailure to ServeDate of DisablementAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionWCLJ Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hurley-Pitts v. Diocese of Rock-Ville Centre

The plaintiff, a Director of Development, sued the Church of Saint Mary and the Diocese of Rockville Centre for injuries sustained after slipping on water on church premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the plaintiff to be a special employee and thus barred from recovery under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the appellate court found triable issues of fact regarding whether church employees created or had notice of the hazardous condition that caused the fall. Crucially, the plaintiff had never applied for workers' compensation benefits, and no determination was made by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding coverage. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 issue due to the Board's primary jurisdiction over such matters, and therefore remitted the case to the Workers' Compensation Board for a determination on the availability of benefits.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeePrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNoticeRemittalAppellate ReviewSlip and FallNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ2022332 (ANA 0334821) ADJ947209 (ANA 0334822)
Regular
Feb 27, 2014

JOHN SHEA vs. PROPSERV, INC., CENTRE INSURANCE. COMPANY., CIGA For CALCOMP, In Liquidation

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the Arbitrator's decision denying CIGA's requests for contribution and reimbursement from Centre Insurance Company. CIGA stipulated to liability for the injury date in 2000, and the Board found that CIGA's subsequent claims of mistake were untimely and lacked good cause to reopen a final award. The Board emphasized the importance of finality in awards and that CIGA failed to timely raise equitable arguments. Therefore, CIGA's appeal for contribution and reimbursement was unsuccessful.

CIGACalCompContributionReimbursementStipulated AwardGood CauseReopenEquitable ArgumentsPrejudgment InterestDate of Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 179 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