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. ADJ9141002 [death claim] ADJ6796445 [inter vivos]
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

RAMON PRIETO (Deceased) vs. APACHE AUTO, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK/STAR INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous award. The amendment changed the cumulative trauma period for the deceased applicant's industrial injury to his heart and neurological system from December 2007-December 2008 to November 2008-December 26, 2008. This change was made to reflect the correct insurance carrier's coverage period. The Board otherwise affirmed the original findings regarding industrial injury and death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boarddeath claiminter vivosindustrial injuryheart/cardiovascular systemneurologic systematrial fibrillationcumulative traumaauto wrecker salespersonZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02039
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

Matter of Sanchez v. Jacobi Med. Ctr.

Claimant Rurico Sanchez was injured in a work-related accident in 2008, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. Following spinal surgeries in 2014 and 2015, the Workers' Compensation Board reclassified his disability and applied various benefit periods against his 300-week durational limit. This appeal addresses the Board's subsequent reclassification decision upon remittal from a prior Appellate Division ruling. The Court found insufficient evidence for the Board's reclassification of claimant as permanently partially disabled for the period following his March 2014 surgery (September 4, 2014 to December 10, 2015) and remitted this portion. However, it affirmed the reclassification for the period following the December 2015 surgery (September 15, 2016 to November 6, 2017). The Court also reversed the Board's reclassification of claimant from temporary total disability to permanent partial disability for periods between surgeries, citing a violation of due process for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. The matter is remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityDurational LimitsWage Loss BenefitsReclassificationDue ProcessMedical OpinionSpinal SurgeryAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ4102884
Regular
May 01, 2008

ERIC HASKINS vs. LAIDLAW EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The applicant sought reconsideration of two prior decisions: a July 26, 2007 decision that rescinded an award and returned the case for further development, and a December 1, 2008 decision that dismissed a prior untimely petition. Both the July 2007 and December 2008 decisions were served by mail, triggering statutory time limits for filing a petition for reconsideration. The March 2, 2009 petition was filed well beyond these deadlines, rendering it untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWCJInterim OrderFinal OrderAggrieved PartySuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2015

Drake v. SRC, Inc.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 31, 2015, which ruled he sustained a permanent partial disability and a 15% loss of wage-earning capacity after a December 2010 work injury. The claimant argued for a 32% loss of wage-earning capacity, which would extend benefit duration, based on post-injury wages. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between calculating loss of wage-earning capacity for benefit duration based on vocational factors and wage-earning capacity based on actual earnings. It found substantial evidence supported the 15% loss of wage-earning capacity, considering the claimant's functional abilities, impairment severity, age, education, and language proficiency.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVocational FactorsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBenefit DurationWork InjuryNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ1950726 (MON 0361748), ADJ6963803, ADJ7198723
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

DANA BURREL vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

In three workers' compensation cases, the applicant sustained industrial injuries to her upper extremities on May 21, 2006, March 11, 2008, and July 28, 2008. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the application of Labor Code section 4658(d)(2), which mandates a 15% increase in permanent disability payments when an employer fails to offer suitable work within 60 days of an injury becoming permanent and stationary. The employer stipulated to providing some medical treatment and returning the applicant to work, but failed to offer regular, modified, or alternative work for 12 months post-injury. The Board found the employer's contention of denial unsubstantiated by evidence and, following *Bontempo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, ruled that the 15% increase applies to all three cases.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent disability increaseindustrial injuryright upper extremityright handright wristright shoulderright armleft wristleft hand
References
4
Case No. ADJ6864635
Regular
Mar 16, 2017

AUDREY KNOX vs. DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS/PATTON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to correct clerical errors in the original award. Specifically, the date of injury was amended to December 4, 2008, and injury to the right shoulder and right knee were added, consistent with stipulations and evidence. The WCAB affirmed the original award's findings on permanent disability and medical treatment. However, the WCAB denied the applicant's request for a 15% increase in permanent disability, agreeing that the employer met the statutory timeframe for offering return-to-work options.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)Permanent and StationaryAgreed Medical ExaminerClerical ErrorReport and RecommendationStipulationsDepartment of State Hospitals
References
2
Case No. ADJ2765369 (SBR 0336967)
Regular
Dec 26, 2012

GARY HEACOCK vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Legally Uninsured, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 8, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over temporary disability overpayments to Gary Heacock following a 2007 back injury. The defendant, Caltrans, sought credit for temporary disability benefits paid from December 15, 2008, to March 25, 2009, arguing the applicant reached permanent and stationary status on the earlier date. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the award. The Board found the applicant was fully indemnified through March 25, 2009, and denied Caltrans' credit for overpayment, recognizing the equitable implications on the applicant's permanent disability award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)OverpaymentCreditLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Industrial Disability Leave
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01876 [181 AD3d 1126]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Markey v. Autosaver Ford

Austin Allan Markey, a general manager for Autosaver Ford, was injured in a work-related fall on December 1, 2015. After informing his supervisor on December 15, 2015, that he intended to file a workers' compensation claim due to requiring surgery for a shoulder tear, he was terminated on December 17, 2015. Markey subsequently filed a discrimination claim against Autosaver Ford under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found in favor of Markey, concluding that the employer retaliated against him and failed to provide a valid business reason for the discharge. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Markey's employment was terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscriminationEmployer MisconductSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law Section 120Job Performance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between District 15, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers & Numberall Stamp & Tool Co.

This case concerns a petition filed by District 15, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, to confirm an arbitration award against Numberall Stamp and Tool Company, Inc. (Numberall-NY) and its alleged alter ego, Numberall-Maine. Numberall-NY, a New York corporation, moved its production facilities to Maine, resulting in a dispute over unpaid severance and vacation pay. An arbitrator found in favor of District 15, but Numberall-NY failed to comply. Numberall-Maine subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting it was a separate entity not bound by the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied Numberall-Maine's motion, ruling that the relationship between the two corporations is a proper issue for the court, consistent with national labor policy concerning successor employers and arbitration duties.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionAlter Ego TheoryCorporate Veil PiercingSuccessor Employer LiabilityDiscovery OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeverance Pay
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,150 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