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

Di Piazza v. George Campbell Painting Co.

The case involves the appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a decedent's widow. The decedent sustained fatal injuries from electrocution while working for the employer. The Board initially awarded death benefits, temporary total disability, and facial disfigurement, but later rescinded the disability award, upholding the disfigurement. The employer appealed, arguing the disfigurement award was improper without a permanent partial disability finding. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the evidence of grave injuries supported total, not partial, disability, making the disfigurement award irrational. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationFacial DisfigurementTemporary Total DisabilityDeath BenefitsConcurrent AwardsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMedical EvidenceAccidentElectrocution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2005

Claim of Cucci v. Rexer's Tang Soo Do Karate Academy

Claimant sustained a severe neck laceration in December 2001 while at work, resulting in a significant scar. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied an award for facial disfigurement, stating the scar was below the jaw. The Workers’ Compensation Board panel modified this, granting a $10,000 award, finding the scar fell within the compensable region under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (t) (2). The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board failed to address the impact of the disfigurement on claimant's present or future earning capacity, a statutory requirement for such an award. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, citing the absence of findings or inferences regarding impaired earning capacity.

Facial DisfigurementSerious DisfigurementEarning CapacityWorkers' Compensation Law § 15Scar InjuryAppellate ReviewRemittalStatutory InterpretationCompensable InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Layman v. Vanguard Contractors, Inc.

Catherine Layman sought workers' compensation benefits for cognitive impairment and a disfiguring scar after a work-related accident in November 1999 while employed by Vanguard Contractors. The drill she was using struck her head, causing a laceration that required fifty-five stitches and left a scar. The trial court found no cognitive impairment but initially miscalculated disfigurement benefits under the wrong statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of no cognitive impairment. However, it modified the disfigurement award, ruling it should be calculated under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(E), limiting benefits to 200 weeks. The court awarded Layman a 20% vocational disability due to disfigurement, equating to forty weeks of permanent partial disability benefits. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the modified judgment.

Disfigurement BenefitsCognitive ImpairmentVocational DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationMedical Impairment RatingEmployability AssessmentHead TraumaScar InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Perez

Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed a judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Juan Perez. Perez suffered burns to his forearm and chest in November 1980, resulting in extensive scarring. The core legal question was whether disfigurement to the torso constitutes a specific injury under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., art. 8306, sec. 12, or a general injury. The trial court found 40% permanent partial incapacity for both the arm injury and chest disfigurement. The appellate court affirmed that disfigurement to a bodily part distinct from a specifically injured member is compensable under Section 12. However, it reversed and remanded the judgment, directing the trial court to cumulate compensation for the permanent partial loss of use of the arm and the incapacity due to chest disfigurement, as these were separate permanent incapacities to distinct body parts.

Workers' CompensationDisfigurementSpecific InjuryGeneral InjuryPermanent Partial IncapacityInjury CumulationTexas LawArticle 8306Burn InjuryScarring
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krollman v. Food Automation Service Techniques, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that denied a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff initiated the action against multiple defendants, claiming injuries sustained during employment with the third-party defendant. The third-party defendant argued that the plaintiff's injuries, specifically a facial disfigurement, did not meet the statutory threshold of "grave injury" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the summary judgment motion was found erroneous because photographic evidence did not depict severe disfigurement, and expert medical opinions are pertinent to permanence but not the severity of disfigurement. Consequently, the appeals court reversed the order, granted the motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintPersonal InjuryFacial DisfigurementGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewErie CountyMedical EvidenceStatutory Threshold
References
7
Case No. 13 NY3d 747
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McKinnon

The case concerns the appeal of a defendant's conviction for first-degree assault, among other crimes, in New York. The core legal issue revolves around whether bite marks inflicted by the defendant on the victim's inner forearm constituted "serious disfigurement" under Penal Law § 120.10 (2). The court, while acknowledging a definition for "disfigurement," found the evidence—consisting of two moderate-sized scars—insufficient to establish serious disfigurement. The court emphasized that the mere existence of scars in that location, without unusually disturbing characteristics, would not make the victim's appearance distressing or objectionable to a reasonable person. Consequently, the first-degree assault conviction and a related second-degree assault count were reversed and dismissed, with the case remitted for further proceedings on a remaining second-degree assault charge.

Criminal LawAssaultFirst Degree AssaultSerious DisfigurementPenal LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsBite MarksPhysical Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waldron v. Wild

Daniel J. Waldron sued Michael P. Wild for personal injuries from a May 25, 1980 car accident. Waldron, a passenger, sustained facial lacerations. Wild moved for summary judgment, arguing Waldron's injuries were not 'serious' under Insurance Law § 671, subdivision 4, lacking 'significant disfigurement.' Special Term granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. Waldron appealed, asserting his half-centimeter forehead scar and nasal prominence constituted significant disfigurement. The appellate court examined medical reports and the definition of 'significant disfigurement,' noting it's a factual issue often requiring visual assessment. The court adopted a jury instruction defining it as a condition a reasonable person would find unattractive, objectionable, or pitiable. Concluding that Waldron demonstrated a triable issue of fact, the appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, denying the summary judgment motion.

NegligencePersonal InjuryCar AccidentFacial InjuriesSignificant DisfigurementNo-Fault LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceScarring
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Graham

This case addresses whether plaintiff Cedric Fleming's facial injuries, specifically scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid, constitute a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, qualifying as a "grave injury." Fleming, an employee of Pinstripes Garment Services, LLC, sustained these injuries in a collision with a school bus. He sued Evergreen Bus Service, Inc., and its driver, who then initiated a third-party action against Pinstripes for indemnity/contribution, claiming Fleming's injuries were "grave." Supreme Court denied Pinstripes' summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division affirmed, finding factual questions. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, establishing a standard for "severe facial disfigurement" which requires the injury to greatly alter the face's appearance and be regarded as "abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly" by a reasonable person. Applying this standard, the Court found that Fleming's injuries, despite numerous scars and some permanency, did not meet the "severe" disfigurement threshold, thereby granting Pinstripes' motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementPermanent InjurySevere InjuryThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1992

Claim of Clements v. Oneida Ltd.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed April 15, 1992, which found that the claimant did not suffer a serious facial disfigurement. The Board's factual determination, supported by a medical examination indicating no facial disfigurement and ongoing dental care for the injury, was upheld. The court affirmed the decision, finding no merit in the claimant's arguments.

Facial DisfigurementWorkers' CompensationMedical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealSubstantial EvidenceDental CareInjuryClaimantAffirmed Decision
References
0
Case No. 11-06-00337-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2008

Duke Pendergraft and MacHelle Pendergraft, Individually and D/B/A Pendergraft Stone v. Elias Camacho Carrillo

This case concerns an appeal arising from an on-the-job injury. Elias Camacho Carrillo sued his uninsured employer, Duke and Machelle Pendergraft d/b/a Pendergraft Stone, for negligence after sustaining a jaw fracture. The trial court awarded Carrillo $325,000 in damages, including for mental anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement. The Eleventh Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient to support the awards for mental anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement. Due to the trial court's failure to segregate damages, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages.

NegligenceOn-the-job injuryDamagesLegal sufficiencyAppellate reviewMental anguishPhysical impairmentDisfigurementJaw fractureNew trial
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 40 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