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. 2025-80-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2025

MEENER, MUSSHUR v. v. FEDERAL EXPRESS HUB

Musshur Meener, an employee of Federal Express Hub, sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits after a work-related slip and fall injured his neck and shoulder. Federal Express denied the requests, contending the injury did not cause current symptoms and that they had offered appropriate work accommodations. The Court denied the benefits, concluding that Mr. Meener failed to provide medical evidence, specifically from a physician, that his work injury contributed more than 50% to his current need for medical treatment. Furthermore, the Court found him ineligible for temporary disability benefits because Federal Express had made a reasonable light-duty offer within his restrictions, and he did not demonstrate a loss of income. This Expedited Hearing Order resulted in the denial of all requested benefits for Mr. Meener.

Expedited HearingBenefits DeniedMedical Treatment DisputeTemporary Disability BenefitsCausation StandardMedical Evidence RequiredLight Duty WorkMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingNeck Injury
References
5
Case No. Civ. A. No. 3:93-CV-0171-G.
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1993

Mills v. INJURY BENEFITS PLAN OF SCHEPPS-FOREMOST

Walter Mills was injured during his employment and sought benefits under his employer's Injury Benefits Plan. He subsequently filed a civil action alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim under Texas law. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Mills' claims against the Injury Benefits Plan, finding them preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the dismissal of Mills' state law claims against Schepps-Foremost, Inc., d/b/a Oak Farms Dairies. Ultimately, the court remanded the remaining state law claims against Schepps-Foremost, Inc. to the County Court at Law Number 5 of Dallas County, Texas, due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

ERISA preemptionWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory dischargeTexas lawFederal jurisdictionMotion to dismissRemandEmployee benefitsCivil procedureDallas County
References
18
Case No. 2020-08-0880
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2022

Erickson, Thomas v. Federal Express Corp.

Thomas Erickson requested temporary total disability benefits for lost time due to a claimed February 2019 injury. Federal Express Corp. denied the claim, asserting Mr. Erickson did not sustain an injury in 2019. The Court heard the issue at an Expedited Hearing on February 8, 2022, and agreed with Federal Express. The Court found that Mr. Erickson's disability resulted from a May 2016 injury, not a new 2019 incident, citing inconsistent injury dates and a change in his theory from a specific incident to a gradually-occurring injury. Consequently, Mr. Erickson's request for temporary total disability benefits was denied.

expedited hearingtemporary total disabilityback injurycausationmedical evidenceinconsistent testimonysettlement agreementprior injurygradual injuryspecific incident
References
2
Case No. 2017-08-0024
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2020

Thomas, Alisha v. Federal Express Corp.

Alisha Thomas filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) seeking permanent total disability benefits or additional permanent partial benefits, which Federal Express Corp. disputed. The Court ruled that Ms. Thomas is entitled to increased permanent partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B) because she had not returned to work by the expiration of her initial compensation period, and her treating physician, Dr. Melvin Goldin, attributed her condition to the work injury at that time. However, the Court denied claims for additional benefits under section 50-6-242 and permanent total disability, as Dr. Goldin's later testimony revealed Ms. Thomas's condition had evolved beyond the initial somatic symptom disorder, and he could not definitively connect her advanced symptoms to the work injury at the time of the award. The awarded increased benefits totaled $3,379.01.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySomatic Symptom DisorderImpairment RatingRes JudicataMental Injury CompensabilityIncreased BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityTreating Physician TestimonyCausation StandardSettlement Agreement
References
5
Case No. 2016-08-0701
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2017

Gueye, Kine v.Federal Express Corp.

Kine Gueye, an employee of Federal Express Corp., sustained a low back injury on April 9, 2015. Federal Express stipulated a compensable low back injury and agreed to provide reasonable medical treatment for it. However, the dispositive issue was whether Ms. Gueye's additional complaints of muscle weakness, paresthesia, dizziness, ataxia, and 'brain compression' causally related to this work injury and entitled her to additional medical and disability benefits. The authorized treating physician, Dr. Arsen Manugian, released Ms. Gueye at maximum medical improvement on June 25, 2015, with no restrictions, attributing her continued low back and leg pain to pre-existing spondylosis. Despite Ms. Gueye's testimony that these symptoms began after her fall, the court found insufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link to the work injury. Consequently, the court denied Ms. Gueye's request for additional medical and temporary or permanent disability benefits for these other complaints, affirming that she is only entitled to future medical treatment from Dr. Manugian for her work-related low back strain.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsCausation DisputeLumbar StrainPre-existing ConditionsMedical Opinion EvidenceDisability Benefits DenialExpedited Hearing OutcomeNeurological SymptomsWorkers' Compensation JudgeTennessee Labor Law
References
7
Case No. 2025-80-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Meener, Musshur v. Federal Express Hub

The employee, Musshur Meener, appealed the denial of additional medical and temporary disability benefits by the trial court after suffering work-related neck and shoulder injuries in a fall at Federal Express Hub. Despite receiving initial medical treatment and being assigned work restrictions, the employee sought further benefits, arguing the employer could not accommodate his restrictions. The trial court found the employee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing at trial, particularly lacking medical proof for the causal relation of his current symptoms and entitlement to disability benefits given the employer's offer of accommodation. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employee did not meet his burden of establishing entitlement to the requested additional benefits. The case was subsequently remanded.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityWork RestrictionsMaximum Medical ImprovementCausal RelationBurden of ProofExpedited HearingSlip and Fall
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1980

Claim of Morris v. Cleanco Industrial Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning whether a claimant waived his Federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113. The claimant sustained a knee injury while working on a ship and initially sought New York State workers' compensation benefits, which he received. Subsequently, he filed a Federal claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The employer and its carrier contended that by pursuing State benefits, the claimant waived his Federal remedies. The State board ruled that accepting State benefits did not constitute a waiver of the right to seek Federal benefits. This appellate court affirmed the board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Waiver of Federal RightsWorkers’ Compensation LawLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActAdmiralty JurisdictionState Compensation BenefitsFederal Compensation BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryDocked Ship
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. 2021-08-1065
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

White, Shalanda v. Federal Express Corp.

Ms. White claimed repetitive bilateral knee injuries over 16 years of employment with Federal Express, seeking medical, temporary, and permanent disability benefits. She reported knee pain in October and November 2020, eventually sending an email titled "Notification of Injury" on December 18, 2020. The Court found that Ms. White knew or should have known of her work-related injury by November 9, 2020, based on doctor's visits and x-ray results indicating overuse. Consequently, her written notice on December 18, 2020, was untimely, exceeding the 15-day statutory limit. The Court denied all requested benefits, concluding that Ms. White failed to provide timely notice and did not offer a reasonable excuse for the delay.

Untimely NoticeCumulative Trauma InjuryBilateral Knee PainDegenerative ArthritisMedical Reporting RequirementsWorkers' Compensation Claim DenialEmployer Notice RequirementsPreponderance of EvidenceBurden of ProofOccupational Overuse
References
3
Case No. 2022-08-0743
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2023

Ingram. Krystal v. Federal Express Corp.

Ms. Ingram requested benefits for a hand and finger injury, claiming it was work-related. Federal Express denied the claim, asserting the injury did not occur within the course and scope of her employment. The Court found that Ms. Ingram failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her injury arose from her employment or aggravated a prior injury. Medical evidence indicated her injury was linked to a non-work-related motor vehicle collision. Consequently, the Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationHand InjuryFinger InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentScope of EmploymentMedical EvidenceBenefits DeniedCausationPrior InjuryExpedited Hearing
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 13,052 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