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
Nov 17, 1977

Daigneault v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant developed chronic bronchitis precipitating emphysema, which was causally related to their employment due to exposure to irritating factors, leading to disability. This decision, filed on November 17, 1977, was appealed. The appellate court affirmed the board's determination, concluding that there was substantial medical evidence to support the finding. Costs were awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the self-insured employer.

Chronic BronchitisEmphysemaCausally Related EmploymentDisabilityMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealSelf-Insured EmployerBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Columbia Construction Co. v. Sims

This workmen's compensation case addresses whether an appellee's emphysema, developed after exposure to phosphorus smoke during employment, is compensable as an "occupational disease" under T.C.A. § 50-1101. The trial court found the appellee totally disabled and his emphysema resulted from employment but initially concluded it was not a listed occupational disease. However, the trial judge then awarded benefits based on a misinterpretation of Martin Brothers Container & Timber Corp. v. Lynch, believing it judicially established emphysema as an occupational disease. The Supreme Court of Tennessee clarified that Martin Brothers was specific to its facts and did not create a universal rule. The Court found the appellee failed to provide medical evidence satisfying the American Insurance Co. v. Ison test, which requires demonstrating the unlisted disease is "closely related" to a statutory occupational disease. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseEmphysemaPhosphorus Smoke ExposureDisability BenefitsT.C.A. § 50-1101Medical EvidenceCausationStatutory InterpretationJudicial Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin Bros. Container & Timber Corp. v. Lynch

Mrs. Lynch, a fifty-one-year-old woman, began working for Martin Brothers Container & Timber Products Corporation in 1966 and developed a lung condition diagnosed as emphysema after six years, which she attributed to sawdust exposure at work. After being terminated in 1975, her workmen's compensation claim was initially denied. The Chancellor found her condition was a direct result of employment and pathologically similar to silicosis, awarding 60% permanent partial disability. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, applying criteria from *American Insurance Company v. Ison* to determine if emphysema could be considered an occupational disease "closely related" to silicosis under Sec. 50-1101, T.C.A.

Occupational Disease CompensabilityEmphysema CausationSilicosis AnalogyMedical Expert TestimonyStandard of ReviewLiberal ConstructionTennessee LawDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation ClaimSawdust Exposure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1979

In re the Claim of Brod v. Julius Young Mfg. Co.

The claimant, a 64-year-old jewelry polisher, sought workers' compensation for pulmonary emphysema, alleging it was caused by breathing fumes and dust at work. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, a decision which was subsequently appealed. The Board's determination was based on medical evidence, specifically the testimony of an Impartial Specialist, Dr. Sydney Bassin, who concluded there was no causal relationship between the claimant's pulmonary condition and their employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support its determination.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Konieczny v. Butterflake Shop

Claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 8, 1977, which ruled that he did not suffer from an occupational disease. The claimant, employed as a baker, was diagnosed with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthmatic bronchitis, and emphysema, following a history of heavy smoking. The record contained conflicting medical evidence regarding the link between his employment and his condition. The court affirmed the Board's determination, holding that when medical proof is contradictory, the question of occupational disease is one of fact for the Board, and their finding was supported by substantial evidence, particularly Dr. Riley's testimony.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' CompensationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAsthmatic BronchitisEmphysemaConflicting Medical EvidenceQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 1978

Claim of Krauss v. Hudson Painting Corp.

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1953 and received compensation. In 1968, the injury was classified as a permanent partial disability, and the case was closed after awarding compensation for a 40% loss of earning capacity. The case was subsequently reopened multiple times due to the claimant's allegations of total disability. Upon review, the Board Panel found no medical evidence to support an increase in the claimant's causally related disability, despite records indicating various chronic ailments like obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. Consequently, the board's decision was affirmed due to substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Earning CapacityReopened CaseTotal Disability ClaimMedical EvidenceCausally Related DisabilityChronic AilmentsSubstantial EvidenceBoard Panel Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Muench v. John L. Schoenfeld Co.

The claimant, a linotype operator for 32 years, developed emphysema and chronic bronchitis due to exposure to molten lead fumes at work. His worsening condition forced him to stop working in 1957. Medical testimonies conflicted, with the claimant's specialist attributing the illness to occupational fume inhalation and the appellant's doctor suggesting a pre-existing condition. The Workmen's Compensation Board determined that the claimant suffered from an occupational disease caused by his employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence. The board's decision, accepting the claimant’s expert opinion on the causal link between his work and disease, was unanimously affirmed on appeal.

Occupational DiseaseEmphysemaChronic BronchitisFume InhalationLinotype OperatorMedical Expert TestimonyCausal LinkWorkers' Compensation BoardAppeal DecisionAffirmed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santiago v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services

The plaintiff and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings in an action to review a denial of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The District Court, treating the motions as for summary judgment due to extraneous material, found medical evidence inconclusive regarding the plaintiff's alleged disability from emphysema and arthritis. The court highlighted the Administrative Law Judge's failure to determine if the plaintiff, a former pipe-worker, could return to his previous occupation, a crucial step for shifting the burden of proof. Consequently, both motions were denied, and the case was remanded to the Secretary for further proceedings to make the necessary findings.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeALJ Decision ReviewMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofRemand OrderOccupational DisabilityPhysical ImpairmentChronic PainDegenerative Joint Disease
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garrio v. Donovan

A porter-cleaner, disabled since 1989 due to lung cancer, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision which concluded his disabling lung condition was not work-related. Claimant’s treating physician opined that his conditions, including asbestosis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD, were causally related to occupational exposure to asbestos, coal dust, and soot. However, the employer’s expert and an impartial specialist concluded that the lung cancer and emphysema were caused by heavy cigarette smoking. The Board's decision, supported by the impartial specialist's and carrier's expert's opinions, was affirmed, finding sufficient medical evidence to resolve the conflict in opinions regarding causality.

Lung CancerAsbestosisChronic BronchitisCOPDCausationMedical Opinion ConflictExpert TestimonyWorkers' Compensation AppealOccupational ExposureCigarette Smoking
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wormsley v. Consolidation Coal Co.

Plaintiff Wormsley, a former coal miner, filed a workers' compensation claim against Consolidation Coal Company for occupational diseases including silicosis, emphysema, and bronchitis. He ceased employment on September 29, 1966, due to respiratory issues, initially misdiagnosing his condition as high blood pressure. On July 19, 1967, Dr. Swann diagnosed him with silicosis. The court addressed the defendant's argument that the claim was time-barred, ruling that the statute of limitations commenced only when the plaintiff received a reliable medical diagnosis of his occupational disease. The court determined that Wormsley's conditions were causally linked to his employment and awarded him 75% permanent partial disability and medical expenses.

Occupational diseaseSilicosisEmphysemaBronchitisStatute of LimitationsNotice requirementDate of injuryDisabilityCoal miningMedical diagnosis
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 26 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