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

Howe v. Howe

This case addresses significant issues related to the equitable distribution of a marital estate in a matrimonial action. The plaintiff's New York City Fire Department disability pension and his September 11th Victim Compensation Fund award are at the core of the dispute. The court determined that the separate property interest in the plaintiff's disability pension can be calculated by the pension administrator, even without extensive trial evidence, and modified the judgment to reflect this. Additionally, the court affirmed that the economic loss component of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund award is considered 'compensation for personal injuries' under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (d) (2), classifying it as the plaintiff's separate property based on legislative intent. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for entry of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertyDisability PensionPersonal Injury CompensationSeptember 11th Victim Compensation FundDomestic Relations LawNew YorkMatrimonial LawPension Distribution
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linger v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Claimant sustained permanent partial disabilities from two 1977 accidents and one 1980 accident, leading to separate awards from different employers and their respective insurance carriers. Initially, the claimant received concurrent benefits exceeding the statutory maximum rate. Upon discovering these concurrent payments, a joint hearing was held. An Administrative Law Judge apportioned the award, which was subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, stating that concurrent awards exceeding the statutory maximum for a permanent partial disability were impermissible. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for a per-accident application of the statutory maximum. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law establishes an overall maximum rate for permanent partial disability regardless of the number of accidents or employments.

Permanent Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory MaximumApportionmentMultiple AccidentsWage LossJudicial PrecedentAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carriers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Reagan

This consolidated appeal addresses whether permanent total disability can be awarded in Tennessee when an anatomical disability rating is below 16.7 percent. The Supreme Court reconciles conflicting panel decisions, specifically overruling Seiber v. Greenbrier Industries, Inc. The court holds that the limitations outlined in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241, which apply to permanent partial disability awards, do not extend to permanent total disability claims. The decision affirms the trial courts' judgments, allowing individuals like Vernon Ray Davis and Bessie Lou Rayfield to receive permanent total disability benefits despite having anatomical impairment ratings under 16.7 percent.

Permanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAnatomical Impairment RatingStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawConsolidated AppealVocational DisabilityEmployee RetentionLegislative Intent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Filipowicz v. De Laval Separator Co.

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and carrier challenging an award for total disability due to silicosis. It was conceded that the claimant suffered from silicosis and was permanently and totally disabled. Appellants argued that there was no proof of injurious exposure during the claimant's last employment with the employer. However, evidence showed the claimant worked as a trucker in the employer's rubber plant, where he was exposed to talc containing silica. The board found sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between this exposure and the claimant's disability, thus affirming the award.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityInjurious ExposureTalc ExposureFoundry WorkerRubber PlantWorkers' Compensation BoardCausal Relation
References
2
Case No. ADJ17547374
Regular
Oct 16, 2025

WARREN P. HARVEY vs. SOCAL MACHINE, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered applicant Warren P. Harvey's petition for reconsideration regarding the equitable hourly reimbursement rates for in-home health care provided by his spouse, asserting errors in the WCJ's rate calculation and attorneys' fees. After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the parties filed Stipulations With Request for Award, agreeing to permanent total disability and further medical treatment for the applicant, though these stipulations did not resolve the reconsideration issues. The Board approved these stipulations, finding them adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and issued an award based upon them, which included specific disability indemnity, medical treatment, and attorney's fees. The Board also commended the parties for resolving some important issues and urged them to continue efforts on the remaining disputes.

Equitable hourly reimbursement ratesIn-home health careCaregiver dutiesNursing dutiesCommunity HHC providerPetition for reconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardPermanent total disabilityTemporary disability indemnityAttorneys' fee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lyublinsky v. Barnhart

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilkins v. Kellogg Co.

This workers' compensation case before the Tennessee Supreme Court addresses the calculation of temporary partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2). Employee Dorothy Wilkins sustained a shoulder injury while working for Kellogg Company and subsequently worked on light duty with reduced hours, but her hourly wage remained unchanged. The trial court awarded Wilkins temporary partial disability benefits based on her average weekly wage, leading to an award of $3,258.20. Kellogg appealed, arguing that the statute's specific language for temporary partial disability mandates a calculation based on the difference in hourly wages before and after the injury, not the average weekly wage. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory text for temporary partial disability benefits has a unique calculation method that does not incorporate the average weekly wage definition. Consequently, since Wilkins's hourly wage did not change, she was not entitled to any temporary partial disability benefits. The Court emphasized that a literal interpretation of the statute aligns with legislative intent and promotes beneficial light duty programs, which ultimately provided Wilkins with more compensation than statutory benefits would have.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAverage Weekly WageHourly RateLight Duty ProgramTennessee LawSupreme CourtEmployer Incentive
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brockington v. University of Rochester

This case addresses an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that granted a reduced earnings award to a claimant suffering from a causally related partial disability. The employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier contested the award, arguing that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the claimant testified that her inability to work stemmed from her deteriorating health, an explanation accepted by the Board. Medical evidence, including reports from her treating physician and an independent medical examination, corroborated her claims of 50% disability, chronic pain, and a preclusion from returning to work due to chronic lumbar strain. The Board's finding that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market was affirmed on appeal, as it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationReduced Earnings AwardVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPartial DisabilityChronic PainLumbar StrainMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blake v. Tomes

Plaintiff, a part-time security guard with a ninth-grade education, injured his neck, back, and shoulder after slipping on ice. The Chancellor awarded temporary total disability, medical expenses, and 40% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, calculating his average weekly wage based on a 40-hour week at federal minimum wage. On appeal, the Defendant challenged both the disability award and the wage calculation. The Supreme Court affirmed the 40% permanent partial disability award, finding material evidence to support it. However, the Court reversed the average weekly wage determination, ruling that it should be based on actual part-time earnings, not a hypothetical full-time wage, and that government housing subsidies cannot be used to compute earnings. The case was remanded for recalculation of compensation based on average weekly earnings of $43.07.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WagePart-time EmploymentMedical TestimonyLay TestimonyGovernment SubsidyWage CalculationDisability AwardSlip and Fall
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 16,204 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