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. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Case No. 2015-02-0387
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

Hensley, Jeffrey Chad Hensley (Deceased) v. Professional Personnel Services

Mr. Jeffrey Chad Hensley suffered a fatal work-related injury. His surviving spouse, Tabitha Hensley, and minor child, Kaydence Hensley, both filed petitions for death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied Tabitha Hensley's claim, finding she was voluntarily living apart from the deceased at the time of his death and was not financially dependent. However, Kaydence Hensley, who was nine years old at the time of the hearing, was found to be wholly dependent on her deceased father. The court ordered Professional Personnel Services to pay Kaydence Hensley accrued and ongoing weekly death benefits, managed by her court-appointed custodians, with a portion allocated for attorney fees.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationDependency BenefitsSurviving SpouseMinor ChildVoluntary SeparationCustody OrderAttorney FeesCompensation HearingTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dailey v. Russann Lumber Co.

This workmen's compensation case concerns the widow of a deceased truck driver seeking benefits after her husband died from a heart attack following a day of strenuous work for Russann Lumber Company. The Trial Judge awarded full statutory benefits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court under the material evidence standard. The employer appealed, contesting the causal connection between the employment and death, and arguing the deceased had deviated from his work. The Court found sufficient evidence that the heart attack arose out of and in the course of employment, and that the alleged deviation did not contribute to his death.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackEmployment ExertionCausal ConnectionDeviation from EmploymentMaterial Evidence StandardMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewTennessee LawTruck Driver
References
3
Case No. ADJ8703877
Regular
Jan 01, 2014

WILLIAM LOZANO (Deceased), CYNTHIA LOZANO (Widow) vs. PYRAMID SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a widow's claim for workers' compensation benefits for her deceased husband's stomach cancer, alleging it was an industrial injury. The applicant contended her husband, a firefighter for a DoD installation, was entitled to a presumption of industrial injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cancer was not industrial because the relevant statute amendment, which would have included DoD firefighters, was not retroactive. Therefore, the presumption of industrial injury did not apply to the decedent's cancer manifestation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWilliam LozanoCynthia LozanoPyramid ServicesState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8703877Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injurystomach cancerpresumption
References
0
Case No. ADJ7731222
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

J. MICHAEL DEVROOM (Deceased), PAMELA FELCHER (Widow) vs. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision except for specific amendments. The applicant's widow, Pamela Felcher, was awarded a $250,000 death benefit for her deceased husband, J. Michael Devroom, with payments commencing June 23, 2010. This award is subject to credit for CALPERS payments and attorney fees, and the deceased was found to be a safety-classified employee exempting him from certain statutory limitations. Additionally, Ms. Felcher is entitled to $2,109.02 for burial expenses, and attorney fees of $37,500 are awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPamela FelcherJ. Michael DevroomDepartment of Consumer AffairsState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationDeath BenefitCALPERS CreditLabor Code Section 4707(b)
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06179 [221 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Pierce v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co.

Debra D. Pierce, as an individual and administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed her claims against Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (ADM) and ADM Milling, Co. Her husband was fatally injured during employment, leading to claims including negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court had granted dismissal based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity, as Pierce had received workers' compensation benefits naming ADM Milling as the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Pierce's direct claims against ADM Milling due to the finality of the Workers' Compensation Board decision. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of future cross-claims against ADM Milling, citing the grave injury exception allowing third-party actions. Additionally, the dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims against ADM was reversed as premature, given unresolved factual issues regarding corporate control.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityGrave Injury ExceptionParent Corporation LiabilityMotion to DismissCollateral AttackJudicial EstoppelThird-Party ActionIndemnification and ContributionEmployment LawWrongful Death
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04825
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2017

LaLima v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vienna LaLima, individually and as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied her motion to amend the complaint. Her husband, a Verizon employee, died after contacting a high voltage power line. LaLima initially sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Lewis Tree Service, and the City of New York. Verizon, a third-party defendant, had agreed to preserve the accident truck, but it was vandalized. LaLima sought to add Verizon as a direct defendant, alleging various causes of action including negligence, Labor Law violations, spoliation of evidence, and wrongful death. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Workers' Compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy against an employer for work-related death and that New York does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort. The court found the proposed amendments patently devoid of merit.

personal injurywrongful deathspoliation of evidenceWorkers' Compensation Lawexclusive remedyfraudulent concealmentamendment of complaintappellate reviewcivil procedureemployer liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Chapin

This appellate decision reviews a divorce judgment concerning equitable distribution of marital property, maintenance, and child support. The court addresses the husband's appeal regarding the distribution of the Claverack property's appreciated value, his separate premarital debt payments, pendente lite support, and counsel fees. The court modifies the division of the Claverack property's appreciation to 75% for the husband and 25% for the wife, and grants the husband credits for pendente lite support overpayments and marital residence payments during litigation. The court otherwise affirms the lower court's findings, including imputing income to the husband due to his history of asset concealment and upholding the durational maintenance and child support awards, as well as counsel and expert fees for the wife.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertySpousal SupportChild SupportImputed IncomeAsset ConcealmentAppellate ReviewPre-marital Debt
References
24
Case No. 01-19-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2020

in the Matter of Brenda Marie Smith

This case involves a will-contest proceeding concerning the Estate of Brenda Marie Smith, Deceased. Appellant Chester Bullard claimed to be Brenda's common-law husband and sought spousal support from her estate. Appellees, Brenda's mother and sisters, contested the existence of this informal marriage. A jury found that Brenda and Bullard were not married, and Bullard appealed, arguing errors in admitting expert testimony and insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings.

Informal MarriageCommon-law MarriageWill ContestEstate LawExpert Witness TestimonyDiscovery DisputesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewForgeryDocument Examination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1989

Schmidt v. Schmidt

The case involves an appeal by a plaintiff wife from a judgment in a divorce action regarding her defendant husband's right to reside in a marital residence apartment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially allowed the husband to remain, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, citing Domestic Relations Law § 234 and emphasizing the trial court's broad authority in matrimonial actions. Key factors included the speculative nature of the wife's expert testimony regarding potential harm to children and the husband's financial inability to secure alternative housing without significantly impacting child support payments. The court considered the financial circumstances of both parties and the children's needs in fashioning an equitable remedy, allowing the husband to contribute more significantly to support if he remained in the apartment.

DivorceAncillary ReliefMarital ResidenceChild SupportFinancial CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionExpert TestimonyQueens CountyFamily Law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,463 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