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. ADJ7311200
Regular
Aug 03, 2017

SEAN HARRIS vs. COAST CRANE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, THUNDER MACHINE WORKS, AIX INSURANCE COMPANY, AEROTEK, ALLEGIS GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by defendant Wausau regarding an arbitrator's findings that applicant sustained industrial injury to his pulmonary system and upper extremities during a cumulative period. Wausau argued the claim was time-barred and that liability for upper extremity injury was improper. The Board denied Wausau's petition, finding Wausau failed to meet its burden of proof on the statute of limitations defense. The Board also determined that applicant properly amended his claim for upper extremities and that apportionment of liability based on days worked was appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCoast Crane CompanyEmployers Insurance of WausauThunder Machine WorksAIX Insurance CompanyAerotekAllegis Group Insurance Companycumulative injurypulmonary systemupper extremities
References
10
Case No. ADJ10798774 (Master File); ADJ10798775
Regular
Jul 21, 2025

WILLK MARILAO vs. CITY OF SHAFTER

Applicant Willk Marilao sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) concerning industrial injuries to his upper and lower extremities. The F&A found 64% permanent partial disability for upper extremities and 23% for lower extremities. Applicant contended that he was 100% permanently and totally disabled and that apportionment was improper. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the F&A, and returned the matter for further proceedings, finding the original findings of specific injuries unsupported by substantial medical evidence, and medical opinions on apportionment to be speculative.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCarpal Tunnel SyndromePermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertPermanently and Totally Disabled
References
27
Case No. ADJ602790 (STK 0179563)
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

TRACEE MAWYER vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

This case involves Tracee Mawyer's workers' compensation claim against Gallo Glass Company for cumulative trauma injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's denial of injury to applicant's bilateral upper extremities, specifically carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board found Dr. Clayman's reports sufficiently supported an industrial injury to the upper extremities and awarded additional temporary disability for the period following carpal tunnel surgery. The case was returned for a new permanent disability rating for the upper extremity injuries.

Cumulative traumabilateral upper extremitiescarpal tunnel release surgerytemporary disabilitypermanent disability ratingreconsiderationDr. Claymanneck injuryshoulder injuryspine injury
References
0
Case No. CV-23-0250
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Janice Brown

Claimant Janice Brown appeals a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which denied her request for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Brown was classified with a permanent partial disability in 2014 due to a work-related back injury from 2010. She sought reclassification to permanent total disability, arguing extreme financial hardship as her expenses exceeded her income by $300. The Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding that she did not demonstrate "extreme hardship" as defined by statute and judicial precedent, noting her assets like an equity loan and a luxury vehicle lease, and unaccounted expenses.

Extreme hardshipPermanent partial disabilityPermanent total disabilityWage earning capacityIndemnity benefitsWorkers' compensation lawFinancial hardshipReclassificationStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
10
Case No. ADJ8835660
Regular
Jan 19, 2018

JOE CASILLAS vs. GRAYD A PRECISION METAL FABRICATORS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the defendant regarding a permanent total disability award for Joe Casillas. The defendant argued against the total disability finding, questioned injury to the left upper extremity, and contested the basis for vocational rehabilitation findings. The Board granted reconsideration to amend the findings, rescinding the finding of injury to the left upper extremity due to the applicant unilaterally withdrawing that issue. However, the Board affirmed the permanent total disability finding based on substantial medical and vocational evidence, including the applicant's significant limitations in daily living and unsuitability for vocational rehabilitation, despite the absence of left upper extremity injury.

Permanent total disabilityvocational rehabilitationindustrial injurybilateral upper extremitiescervical spinepsychefabricatorState Compensation Insurance Fundpetition for reconsiderationadministrative law judge
References
3
Case No. ADJ10065069
Regular
May 16, 2018

MARCIA FARRAR vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the applicant's right upper extremity. Defendant argued that no evidence supported injury to other alleged body parts and that the WCJ should have made findings on those parts instead of deferring the issue. The WCAB denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision to limit the trial to the threshold issue of right upper extremity injury AOE/COE. The WCAB found Dr. Amster's opinion constituted substantial evidence for the right upper extremity injury and that the WCJ acted within their authority by deferring other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAOE/COEQualified Medical ExaminerReconsiderationCumulative TraumaRepetitive Strain InjuryPreexisting ConditionAggravationContributing CauseMandatory Settlement Conference
References
7
Case No. ADJ7658097
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

John Cummins vs. VIP Limousines \& Coaches, Inc., Commerce and Industrial Insurance Company, Barrett Business Services, Inc.

This case involves an applicant who claimed injury to multiple body parts, including upper extremities, back, neck, abdomen (hernia), and lower extremities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the original findings, except they specifically ruled against injury to the applicant's upper extremities based on the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The WCAB also clarified that temporary disability benefits should commence from September 14, 2010, the date of hernia repair surgery, and deferred the determination of the exact date of injury for the cumulative trauma. The court also upheld the applicant's average weekly earnings determination, finding the applicant's testimony and records credible and unrebutted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)temporary disability indemnitydate of injurycumulative traumahernia repairpulmonary embolism
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HART EX REL. HART v. Massanari

Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of her minor daughter, Ginger E. Hart, to challenge the denial of disability benefits by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The case focused on the interpretation of "extreme impairment" in social functioning for child disability claims under the Social Security Act's Supplemental Security Income program. The District Court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, reversing the Commissioner's decision. The court found that the Commissioner's determination that Ginger had only a marked, not extreme, limitation in social functioning was not supported by substantial evidence, especially considering clarifications provided in later regulations regarding the definition of "extreme limitation". The case was remanded for the calculation of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActChild DisabilityFunctional LimitationsSocial FunctioningAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilInterim Final RulesExtreme LimitationMarked Limitation
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01843 [236 AD3d 1254]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Mystkowski v. Monpat Constr. Inc.

The claimant, Bogdan Mystkowski, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request for an extreme hardship redetermination. Mystkowski, who suffered a back injury in 2011 and was found to have a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to a permanent total disability due to alleged financial hardship. The Board, affirming a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, found that Mystkowski's claimed expenses, including a luxury vehicle and high food costs attributed to an inability to cook, did not meet the threshold of 'unusual or unexpected expenses' for extreme hardship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence, noting that demonstrating expenses exceed income does not automatically mandate an extreme hardship finding.

Extreme HardshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipIndemnity BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAdministrative Appeal
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05006
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Brown v. Plans Plus Ltd.

Claimant Janice Brown was injured in a work-related accident in 2010, resulting in a permanent partial disability and 80% loss of wage earning capacity. She was entitled to 425 weeks of indemnity benefits. Prior to their exhaustion, she sought an extreme hardship redetermination to be reclassified to permanent total disability, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board denied. The Board interpreted 'extreme hardship' as requiring financial hardship beyond the ordinary, considering claimant's assets, income, and expenses. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation and application of the extreme hardship standard rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting claimant's home equity loan and luxury vehicle lease.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityExtreme Hardship RedeterminationWage Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsReclassificationPermanent Total DisabilityFinancial HardshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 359 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