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

McLaughlin v. Ludlow Valve Co.

The case, Claimant v. Respondents, centers on whether an employer's payment for eyeglasses, lost in a 1967 plane accident, constituted an "advance payment" of workers' compensation, thus waiving the two-year filing limit under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 28 for a claim filed in 1971. Initially, the referee found in favor of the claimant, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, ruling the payment was merely for personal property loss. The court found the board erred in applying the law, noting eyeglasses are compensable under Section 13(a) and the board failed to adequately consider whether the payment was made in acknowledgment of liability. Furthermore, the board neglected to consider an employer's affidavit affirming the payment was an advance of compensation. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the case for further development of the record on the issues of the accident, notice, and causal relationship.

Workers' CompensationAdvance PaymentTimely FilingStatute of LimitationsEyeglasses CompensationPersonal Property LossAcknowledgment of LiabilityRemittalAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ6466946 ADJ6611333
Regular
Feb 21, 2012

SABA PICHARDO vs. PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

Here's a summary of the case: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the prior order was interlocutory, not final. The WCAB granted removal and rescinded the prior order, returning the case to the trial level. This decision was based on the defendant's argument of significant prejudice from re-evaluating the applicant's need for eyeglasses, which an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) had previously deemed non-industrial due to age. A dissenting opinion argued for returning the applicant to the AME, citing ambiguity in the prior AME report and the need for further development of the record regarding current needs.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalFindings and OrdersLabor Code section 5701Agreed Medical ExaminerOphthalmologistEyeglassesIndustrial InjuryNon-industrial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mantzakos v. P.A.O. Parking Corp.

The claimant suffered a work-related eye injury in April 1995, necessitating surgery for a metallic foreign body and lens replacement, which restored his vision to 20/20. An issue arose concerning a schedule loss of use award under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (s). The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the award, interpreting 'corrected loss of vision' to exclude surgical implants, limiting it to eyeglasses or contact lenses based on legislative history. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational and noting that any changes would require legislative action.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseEye InjurySurgical Lens ImplantVision RestorationStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCorrective DevicesUncorrected VisionAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-3 of 3 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