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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Burk

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appealed a judgment finding that Roy Burk's work-related back injury caused his polyneuropathy and foot ulceration. Burk, injured in 1998, developed complications including cauda equina syndrome, leading to conditions like nerve root impairment, polyneuropathy, and foot ulcerations, which the insurer disputed were work-related, suggesting diabetes as the cause. The trial court, reviewing a Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision, ruled that the work injury extended to Burk's polyneuropathy and foot ulcerations, but not his diabetes. Liberty Mutual contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient, citing a lack of medical expert testimony from Burk and relying on their expert's opinion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence, including conflicting expert testimony and the judicial notice of the prior appeals panel decision, supported the causal link between Burk's work injury and his conditions.

Judicial ReviewPolyneuropathyFoot UlcerationCauda Equina SyndromeBack InjurySufficiency of EvidenceCausationMedical Expert TestimonyTexas Labor CodeAppeals Panel Decision
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Phelan v. Bethpage State Park, New York State Department of Parks & Recreation

Claimant, a groundskeeper for over 35 years at a state park, developed a diabetic ulceration with osteomyelitis in his right foot, necessitating surgery and partial amputation. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, attributing his condition to cold exposure from his outdoor work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing the condition stemmed from diabetes, not his employment. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related occupational disease and awarded benefits. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim due to a lack of causally related occupational disease. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the claimant's condition was alleged to result from an environmental condition rather than a distinctive feature of his occupation, and that the submitted medical evidence of a causal relationship was not compelling.

Occupational DiseaseCausal RelationshipDiabetic UlcerationOsteomyelitisCold ExposureGrounds KeepingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Board Reversal
References
7
Case No. LBO 0370243
Regular
May 19, 2008

JOEL GRIMALDO vs. ABBEY EVENT SERVICES / STELLAR EVENT \& PRESENTATION, AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a previous finding, ruling that the applicant's diabetes was not industrially caused. While the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left foot, the Board found substantial medical evidence indicating his diabetes was a pre-existing condition that complicated the foot injury rather than being caused by it. Consequently, the decision was amended to exclude diabetes as an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurydiabetesfoot injuryosteomyelitisamputationcausationmedical evidencereconsiderationapportionment
References
8
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. 2-08-444-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Roy Burk

Roy Burk sustained a work-related back injury in 1998, which necessitated multiple surgeries, including one for cauda equina syndrome. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, who accepted the initial injury, later contested the extent of Burk's injury, specifically arguing that his work injury did not cause his polyneuropathy and foot ulceration. Following a Contested Case Hearing and an affirmation by an appeals panel in Burk's favor, Liberty Mutual initiated judicial review. The trial court subsequently ruled that Burk's work-related injury did indeed extend to his polyneuropathy and foot ulcerations. Liberty Mutual appealed this decision, citing legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings, highlighting inconsistencies in the expert testimony presented by Liberty Mutual.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceCausationPolyneuropathyFoot UlcerationBack InjuryCauda Equina SyndromeMedical Expert TestimonyTexas Law
References
28
Case No. 2017-05-0720
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2018

Hunt, Alice v. Kroger

Ms. Hunt, a Kroger employee, sought workers' compensation benefits for complications from diabetes and hypertension, which she alleged were caused by work-related stress from pushing shopping carts in hot weather. She experienced a syncopal episode at work in May 2017 and later developed retinal detachment and a foot ulceration, attributing these to the incident. The Court conducted an expedited hearing to determine if these complications causally related to her employment. The Court found insufficient medical evidence to establish a causal connection between Ms. Hunt's work activity and her health problems, noting her pre-existing conditions. Therefore, the request for benefits was denied, as Ms. Hunt failed to show a likelihood of prevailing at trial based on expert medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsCausationMedical EvidencePre-existing ConditionDiabetes ComplicationsHypertensionSyncopal EpisodePeripheral Neuropathy
References
4
Case No. ADJ1577836
Regular
May 04, 2009

JESUS GAVINO-REMIGIO vs. STRATUS SERVICES GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured when stepping on a metal hook, sustaining an admitted industrial injury to his right foot. The applicant sought reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied findings that the injury also affected his internal systems (diabetes), eyes, and psyche, along with associated disability. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant's medical expert's opinion on non-industrial diabetes causation to be substantial evidence, while deeming the applicant's medical experts' opinions insufficient. A dissenting commissioner argued the applicant's medical evidence sufficiently supported industrial causation for diabetes aggravation, warranting reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryright footinternal systemseyespsychediabetes mellituspermanent disabilitytemporary disabilityGerald Markovitz M.D.
References
5
Case No. MON 297119
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

EDMUND BURNS, Jr. vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a police officer who sustained an industrial injury to his right foot after stepping on a foreign object, which, due to his pre-existing diabetes, led to a gangrenous infection and amputation. The defendant argued for apportionment of the permanent disability to the applicant's diabetes, but the Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision. The medical evidence indicated that the amputation would not have occurred absent the industrial injury, thus establishing industrial causation for the entire permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPre-existing DiabetesCausationEscobedo v. MarshallsSenate Bill 899Qualified Medical ExaminerTreating Physician
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06228 [153 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

Matter of Everett v. Sodexo, Inc.

Eugene Everett, a dishwasher, suffered a foot injury at work when a large pot fell on it, leading to the amputation of his toe and ultimately half of his left foot. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, which his employer, Sodexo, Inc., and its carrier opposed, asserting the injury was due to his diabetes and that he made misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the injury causally related and no misrepresentation, a decision affirmed by a Workers' Compensation Board panel and then by the full Board. The employer's appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, was dismissed. The court ruled that the right to appeal from the Board panel's decision terminated upon the issuance of the full Board's superseding decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorkplace InjuryAmputation ClaimCausation DisputeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAppeal DismissalSuperseding JudgmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1977

Beckley v. Transworld Airlines

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on March 3, 1977, and subsequently amended on December 2, 1977. The Board had affirmed a referee’s decision which disallowed a claim for compensation benefits. The disallowance was based on the finding that the claimant’s ulcerative colitis was not causally related to their occupation as an inflight service supervisor. The Board’s determination relied on a medical report by Dr. Jacobi and testimony from Ms. Wolf, concluding that the ailment was not an inherent hazard of the occupation. The appellate court reviewed the entire record and found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, thus affirming it without costs.

Ulcerative ColitisCausationOccupational IllnessMedical Expert TestimonyInflight Service SupervisorBenefit DisallowanceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Report FindingsSufficiency of Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 553 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