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. 2023-06-5023
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2024

Swanson, Darold v. Facility Installation Service

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville addressed motions in the case of Darold Swanson. Swanson filed a petition alleging a COVID-19 work-related injury from August 2021, seeking benefits from Facility Installation Service, Auto Owners Ins. Co., and the Subsequent Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, citing that it was filed nearly two years post-injury, thus exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. Swanson also filed a motion to continue, claiming incapacitation, but failed to appear at the hearing or provide adequate support. Judge Joshua D. Baker denied Swanson's motion to continue and granted the employer's motion to dismiss with prejudice, ruling that the claim was time-barred and no tolling exceptions applied.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissCOVID-19 ClaimTimelinessTolling DoctrineIncapacity ClaimFailure to AppearProcedural DismissalTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1954

Peters v. New York City Housing Authority

The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pre' Catelan, Inc. v. International Federation of Workers

The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating an 'open shop' called Pre’ Catelan, sought an injunction against striking workers and their union. The strike, initiated without warning, involved picketing and alleged acts of violence, intimidation, and assault against employees and patrons, resulting in severe injuries to some workers. The defendants denied these charges, claiming peaceful picketing and attributing any disturbances to strangers, arguing the strike was due to the plaintiff's intention to destroy the union. The court, citing established principles regarding lawful picketing and the protection of workers' rights, found that the presented proof established aggravated assaults and threats. Consequently, the motion to continue the injunction pendente lite was granted.

StrikePicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeViolenceIntimidationAssaultThreatsOpen ShopClosed Shop
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jabril P.

The case concerns a proceeding under New York State Social Services Law § 392 to determine whether three children should remain in foster care. This court was directed by the Appellate Division, First Department, to provide findings after reversing previous orders to discharge the children to their parents. A new hearing in 1980 found the father unfit due to his demanding nature and inability to understand the children's needs. The mother, while in remission from prior issues, remained questionable in her ability to cope with the stress of the children's return, especially given the father's attitude and the return of an older son from prison. The court, balancing parental rights with the children's best interests, granted the agency's petition for continued foster care until March 1, 1981, imposing several conditions on the parents and the agency.

Foster CareParental RightsSocial Services LawChild WelfareFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate DivisionUnfitnessPsychiatric TreatmentVisitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lindsay W.

The Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, which effectively dismissed a proceeding to continue the placement of a neglected child, Lindsay W. The Family Court had denied the Commissioner's request for a temporary extension of placement, citing the process server's error in service as an invalid excuse. The appellate court ruled that the Family Court abused its discretion by not granting the temporary extension, finding that the Commissioner had shown 'good cause' through good-faith attempts to notify the respondent mother and an excusable process server misunderstanding. The case was reversed and remitted to the Family Court to determine if the Commissioner's initial petition for extension, filed 11 days late, was also for 'good cause', which would then lead to a merits hearing on the extension of placement.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActPlacement ExtensionService of ProcessAbuse of DiscretionGood CauseParental RightsAppellate ReviewRemittiturTimely Filing
References
6
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. 203 Tenn. 396
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1958

Textile Workers Union, Local No. 513 v. Brookside Mills, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, specifically regarding the calculation and entitlement of vacation pay for employees of Brookside Mills. The primary disputes centered on distinguishing 'continuous service' from 'seniority' for vacation pay purposes, the impact of layoffs on continuous service, the eligibility period for vacation pay, the allowance of interest on awarded amounts, and the procedure for disbursing payments to individual class members. The Court upheld the Chancellor's finding that seniority and continuous service are distinct but modified the ruling on layoffs, stating that only substantial economic layoffs break continuous service. The Court also reversed the Chancellor's decisions regarding the continuous service computation period and the award of interest, concluding that there was no evidence of bad faith on the employer's part. Furthermore, the Court clarified that judgments should be rendered for existing parties or those who properly intervene, retaining the case for future interventions.

Vacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementContinuous ServiceSeniority RightsLayoff PolicyInterest on DamagesClass Action SuitIntervention (Legal)Contract InterpretationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dillabough v. Jaquith Industries, Inc.

Claimant, who suffered an occupational injury to their right elbow, was deemed permanently partially disabled and awarded continuing workers' compensation benefits for reduced earnings after accepting a lower-paying position with the employer. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision. The employer appealed, arguing the injury was amenable to a schedule award rather than continuing benefits. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from a medical expert that the claimant's condition involved continuing pain, potential worsening, and a future need for surgery, justifying the award of continuing benefits.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsSchedule AwardContinuing BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyPainSurgeryOccupational InjuryEmployer Appeal
References
6
Case No. ADJ8643967, ADJ10070125, ADJ10069887, ADJ10525090
Regular
Sep 28, 2018

Applicant vs. Calgary Flames, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for removal of a prior order granting a continuance. The applicant, a hockey player alleging industrial injuries, claimed the continuance would cause significant prejudice and irreparable harm. However, the Board found that the applicant's attorney had filed a petition to withdraw, making the continuance necessary for the applicant to secure new counsel. Therefore, removal was deemed inappropriate and the petition was denied.

ADJ8643967ADJ10070125ADJ10069887ADJ10525090Santa Ana District OfficeCALGARY FLAMESOPINION AND ORDERDENYING PETITION FOR REMOVALworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ9767710
Regular
Jun 21, 2016

BRENT BAISCH vs. VIDEO ONLY, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award for continued care at CareMeridian. The Administrative Law Judge found the defendant failed to conduct timely utilization review (UR) for the applicant's continued care, rendering the UR invalid. The Board agreed that the untimely UR allowed them to determine the medical treatment dispute and that continued care at CareMeridian was reasonable and necessary pending an appropriately arranged transfer. The Board affirmed the finding that the defendant failed to comply with statutory requirements for concurrent UR.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Concurrent ReviewRequest for AuthorizationFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMedical Treatment Dispute
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,867 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