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. ADJ2308109 (OAK 0275439) ADJ01058712 (OAK 0275438)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

LINDA BURT-FOSS vs. CHILDREN'S FAIRYLAND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a zoo keeper injured in 1999. The applicant sustained a left foot and ankle injury that led to a Charcot foot condition, resulting in total permanent disability. The defendant argued for apportionment of disability, citing a medical opinion suggesting pre-existing conditions contributed to the Charcot foot. However, the Board affirmed the applicant's total permanent disability, finding the industrial injury was a contributing cause and therefore not subject to apportionment. The Board also found that the defendant waived issues regarding the overlap of disabilities from prior knee injuries by failing to raise them in their petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorCharcot footIndustrial InjuryInciting EventCompensable Consequence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. 07 Civ. 1358(DAB)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2009

Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc.

Plaintiff Geoffrey Osberg filed a class action against Foot Locker, Inc. and its Retirement Plan, alleging violations of ERISA due to the 1996 conversion of the plan to a cash balance system. The complaint included claims for age discrimination, insufficient notice of benefit reduction, misleading summary plan descriptions (SPDs), and breach of fiduciary duties. Defendants moved to dismiss all counts, but the court denied dismissal on grounds of standing and statute of limitations for all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss for age discrimination (Count One) and insufficient notice under the 1996 ERISA § 204(h) (Count Two), aligning with precedents that found cash balance plans not inherently age discriminatory and that the notice provided met the then-current requirements. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss regarding the misleading SPD (Count Three) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count Four), concluding that the SPD might have been insufficiently clear about the "wear-away" effect and benefit reductions, thereby supporting the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

ERISApension plancash balance planbenefit conversionage discriminationfiduciary dutysummary plan descriptionnotice requirementsmotion to dismissstatute of limitations
References
15
Case No. ADJ350092 (LBO 0372531)
Regular
Apr 23, 2010

PATRICK FOOTE vs. MEDADENT BIOMEDICAL; SCIF INSURED SANTA ANA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Patrick Foote's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified and lacked proof of service, violating Labor Code sections 5902 and 5905. The Board noted that the applicant had ample opportunity to cure these defects but failed to do so. Even if the procedural defects were overlooked, the Board would have denied the petition based on the original administrative law judge's findings. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIndustrial InjuryPsycheUpper BackNeckHeadIn Pro PerUnverified Petition
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jweid v. Vicks Lithograph & Printing

Claimant injured his back at work in February 1999, leading to multiple diagnoses and back surgeries. Following surgeries, he developed a consequential left foot drop injury. A workers' compensation claim was established and later amended to include the foot drop. Medical evidence supported a 40% loss of use of the left foot and a permanent partial disability of his back, with the claimant having reached maximum medical improvement. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge made a schedule loss award for the 40% loss of use of the left foot, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing against a schedule loss award. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, as a schedule loss of use award is appropriate when there is no continuing need for medical treatment and the condition is stable.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseBack InjuryFoot DropMedical ImprovementPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hughes v. Indian Valley Industries, Inc.

In October 1996, the claimant sustained a work-related injury while lifting a 500-pound tarpaulin, leading to claims of left foot, leg, low back injuries, and nerve damage. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) recognized causal relationship only for the left foot injury, later amending the findings to include the back injury and left foot drop. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded the portion regarding the left foot drop for further medical evaluation but affirmed the causal relationship for the back injury and rejected the carrier's fraud allegations. The employer and its carrier appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, noting that resolving conflicting expert medical testimony falls within the Board’s authority and concluding that the Board’s findings on the back injury and fraud issue were supported by substantial evidence.

CausationBack InjuryLeft Foot DropMedical EvidenceConflicting TestimonyWorkers' Compensation FraudPreexisting ConditionSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate AffirmationJudicial Review of Administrative Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ7744103, ADJ7580182 (MF)
Regular
May 05, 2014

IGNACIO RAMOS vs. GREENWOOD DAIRY, CALIFORNIA LIVESTOCK PROCDUCERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the judge's decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. While finding no permanent disability from the applicant's industrial foot injury, the Board determined that the applicant did sustain industrial injury in the form of a fungal foot infection and bilateral foot sprain. The Board disagreed with the trial judge's finding of no industrial injury and clarified that Dr. McCoy's opinion, not Dr. Panting's, constituted substantial evidence regarding the nature of the industrial injury. Issues of temporary disability and further medical treatment were deferred to the trial level for further decision.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminerPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationSubstantial EvidenceMedical ProbabilityOsteonecrosisFreiberg's infractionFungal foot infection
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCorkle-Spaulding v. Lowe's

The claimant suffered a work-related left foot injury in February 2008 and received workers' compensation benefits. In March 2009, the claimant filed a C-3 form, alleging a causally related injury to her right foot from the same incident. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the right foot claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which subsequently denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The claimant appealed both Board decisions; however, the appeal from the underlying decision was not timely perfected. Consequently, the appellate court limited its review to whether the Board’s denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious. Finding that the claimant offered no new evidence previously unavailable, the court concluded that the Board's denial was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed the decisions.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related DisabilityFoot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionReconsideration DenialTimelinessAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. East Medical Center

Plaintiff Douglas W. Robinson, a journeyman plumber, was injured on a construction site in 1998 while working for Burns Brothers Contractors. He sustained a back injury after using a six-foot ladder, which he knew was too short for the task, and standing on its top cap. He had previously requested an eight-foot ladder from his foreman but proceeded with the inadequate one. Robinson sued the owner of the medical complex (East Medical Center LP) and the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and 241 (6). While the Supreme Court initially granted him partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that adequate safety devices (eight-foot ladders) were available at the job site, and the plaintiff's own negligent actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLadder SafetyNegligenceProximate CauseLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryDuty to Provide Safety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1979

In re the Claim of Jones v. John W. Cowper Co.

On April 26, 1973, the claimant sustained a work-related accident, with an initial employer's report specifying only a left foot injury. Four years later, on May 17, 1977, the claimant filed a compensation claim for injuries to his left ankle and back. While the original foot injury claim was not contested, the claim for the back injury was due to untimely notice. A referee initially allowed the foot injury claim but disallowed the back injury claim on March 5, 1979, due to lack of timely notice. The Workers’ Compensation Board, on December 27, 1979, modified this decision, finding that notice and causal connection for the back condition were established. However, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which bars claims not filed within two years of the accident. The court concluded that the Board lacked the power to amend a claim after two years to include an unrelated condition. The matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings.

Timely NoticeClaim AmendmentStatute of LimitationsBack Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision ReversalRemittalWork-Related InjuryFoot InjuryJudicial Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 303 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