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. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. 2019-06-0272
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2019

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case came before the Court on Nilian Ayala’s request for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. The employer, Jani-King International, Inc., agreed to provide a panel of physicians for Ms. Ayala's hand, wrist, and elbow treatment. However, the Court could not grant temporary total disability benefits due to the lack of medical records from a physician taking her off work. Consequently, the evidentiary hearing did not proceed. The Court ordered the employer to provide the panel of physicians and scheduled a future scheduling hearing.

expedited hearingmedical benefitstemporary disabilitypanel of physiciansworkers' compensation claimsTennesseehand injurywrist injuryelbow injuryemployer responsibility
References
0
Case No. 2017-03-0579
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Darrell Mongar, a former deputy sheriff for Campbell County, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical benefits for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, which he attributed to his eighteen-year employment due to noise exposure from gunfire and sirens. The Court, presided over by Judge Pamela B. Johnson, reviewed written materials as no evidentiary hearing was requested. Mr. Mongar presented medical evidence from Dr. C.M. Salekin and Dr. Brynae Miley, who both diagnosed significant occupational hearing loss and tinnitus, stating his employment primarily advanced a pre-existing condition. Campbell County offered no contradictory medical evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Mongar's request, ordering Campbell County to provide a panel of physicians for his medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationHearing LossTinnitusOccupational DiseasePre-existing ConditionMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingDeputy SheriffNoise ExposureCausation
References
3
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. 2015-07-0153
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Bryan Caldwell, a Senior Correctional Officer for Corrections Corp. of America (CCA), filed a Request for Expedited Hearing (REH) seeking medical benefits for a left knee injury sustained at work. Mr. Caldwell reported his knee "popped" while standing from a chair. Medical evaluations diagnosed a knee strain/sprain. CCA denied the claim, stating the injury was not compensable under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The Court reviewed the file without an evidentiary hearing and determined that Mr. Caldwell's injury was idiopathic and did not arise primarily out of his employment, as there was no proof of an employment hazard causing or exacerbating the injury. The Court therefore denied his request for medical and temporary disability benefits, and the matter was set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsIdiopathic InjuryKnee InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCausationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentTennessee LawBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

In this Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to annul the revocation of her appointment as a social case worker or to obtain an evidentiary hearing. Her appointment was rescinded due to suspicions of food stamp fraud, stemming from an alleged failure to report income from a part-time job. Respondents argued the rescission was a discretionary administrative act and that petitioner had no right to a prior hearing. The court, citing Board of Regents v Roth, determined that the petitioner's right to an evidentiary hearing, particularly when her reputation is affected, is comparable to that of a probationary employee. Consequently, the petition was granted in part, remanding the matter to the Department of Social Services for an evidentiary hearing within 50 days to address the allegations of food stamp regulation violations.

Article 78Probationary EmploymentDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingFood Stamp FraudRescission of AppointmentAdministrative ReviewReputationWestchester County
References
3
Case No. 2016-05-0519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2016

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Randy Foster, the employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing (REH) seeking workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Gold Street Automotive, LLC, for an alleged left shoulder injury sustained in mid-January 2016. The employee requested a ruling based on a file review without an evidentiary hearing. The Court found that Mr. Foster failed to provide sufficient expert medical evidence linking his rotator cuff tear to his employment with Gold Street. Additionally, the Court determined he did not provide enough evidence to establish entitlement to a panel of physicians. Consequently, the Court denied his request for reimbursement of medical expenses and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofDenial of BenefitsUninsured Employer's FundTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. 2015-05-0193
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2016

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Jessica Felter, a caregiver for MMR Senior Alliance Group, sought workers' compensation benefits after a slip and fall in an icy parking lot at a client's residence before her shift. MMR denied the claim, arguing the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Robert Durham, conducted an expedited hearing, reviewing the file without an evidentiary hearing. The Court found Ms. Felter's evidence sufficient to establish she is likely to prevail, applying the "premises rule" exception to the "going and coming" rule. Consequently, the Court granted Ms. Felter's request for medical benefits, ordering MMR to pay for emergent care and provide a panel of authorized treating physicians for her work-related injury.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityGoing and Coming RuleWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical BenefitsHome Health NurseCaregiver InjuryIcy ConditionsParking Lot AccidentExpedited Hearing
References
6
Case No. 2015-06-0814
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2016

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The employee, Douglas Erickson, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical benefits for a tick-borne illness he allegedly contracted on July 10, 2015, while working as a surveyor for Wilson and Associates, P.C. The employer denied the claim. The court reviewed the file without an evidentiary hearing. Judge Robert Durham found that Mr. Erickson failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that he was likely to prevail on the merits regarding the compensability of his alleged injury, specifically concerning causation and the reasonableness and necessity of past medical expenses. The court noted a lack of a specific incident for the tick bite, conflicting medical opinions on causation, and a failure to consult with the employer before incurring unauthorized medical expenses. Consequently, the employee's request for medical benefits was denied.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialTick Bite InjuryCausation DisputeExpedited HearingBurden of ProofMedical Expense ReimbursementUnauthorized Medical CareSurveyor EmployeeTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,804 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