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

Claim of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc.

Claimant, a director of research and publications, developed neck and shoulder pain radiating to his arms and hands after working for the employer for a month, attributing it to a lack of an ergonomically designed workstation and an outdated computer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found he suffered an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, but later amended it, ruling that claimant suffered an accidental injury. The employer appealed both decisions. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in amending the prior decision and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment-related accidental injury, which can be established by medical evidence of repetitive acts causing debilitating injury, even if symptoms accrued gradually.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Strain InjuryErgonomicsAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJurisdictionMedical EvidenceGradual Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ2218706 (VNO 0501260) ADJ1058308 (VNO 0482296)
Regular
Apr 19, 2010

DONNA DeRUSSY vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, TRAVELER'S INSURANCE, SAFETY NATIONAL, FRONTIER INSURANCE

This case concerns appeals from a workers' compensation judge's decision regarding liability for cumulative trauma injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the determination of the date of injury under Labor Code § 5412, which is crucial for assigning liability to the insurer covering the last year of exposure. The Board found the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient clarity and specific findings regarding disability and knowledge of causation. Therefore, the prior decision was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings to make clear findings consistent with established legal principles.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDonna DeRussyAntelope Valley Health Care SystemTravelers InsuranceSafety NationalFrontier Insurancecumulative traumadate of injuryLabor Code §5500.5Labor Code §5412
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2014

Claim of Angela Page v. Liberty Central School District

The claimant, a school librarian, sought workers' compensation benefits in July 2004 for a disability from toxic mold exposure, leading to an established claim for hypersensitivity and awards for temporary total disability. In 2006, the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity, and awards for marked disability continued. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) later classified the claimant with a permanent total disability in March 2010, but the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded this finding and referred the matter to an impartial medical specialist, Theodore Them. Them testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically recognized condition and that the claimant had no causally-related disability, which the Board credited in its December 2012 decision, finding no further causally-related disability and closing the case. The claimant's subsequent appeal of this decision was not perfected, and an application for reconsideration was denied. An April 2013 WCLJ decision to further develop the record on disability was challenged by the employer, who argued the December 2012 Board decision had resolved the issue. The Board panel agreed with the employer in January 2014, precluding further development of the record, a decision which this Court affirmed on appeal, stating the issue of causally-related disability had been decided and the claimant's remedy was a timely appeal of the prior Board decision.

References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision and amended decision, which found that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability, were affirmed on appeal. The employer's argument regarding the untimeliness of the claimant's supplemental notice of appeal was rejected due to lack of proof of service for the amended decision. The Board's plenary authority to modify previous decisions was upheld, as no facts indicated arbitrary or capricious action in amending its prior decision. The court concluded that the Board's finding of no total industrial disability was supported by substantial evidence, noting that the case involved a conflict of medical opinion, which is a factual matter for the Board to resolve. All remaining arguments by the claimant were considered and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 23Industrial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of AppealArbitrary and Capricious StandardFactual DisputeClaimant's Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of VanWinkle v. Harden Furniture

Claimant, a woodworker, sustained a work-related back injury and subsequently resigned from her physically demanding job after being denied a less strenuous office position. The employer challenged her temporary award of reduced earnings, arguing she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that her resignation was motivated by her back injury and persistent pain, supported by her treating chiropractor's advice to seek less strenuous work. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. This decision upheld the claimant's entitlement to reduced earnings benefits.

voluntary withdrawallabor marketback injuryresignationreduced earningschiropractic advicesubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation lawemployment changephysical restrictions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kurzyna v. Communicar, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the employer-employee relationship between Steven Kurzyna (claimant’s decedent) and Communicar, Inc./Scull’s Angels, Inc. Kurzyna, a limousine driver, was fatally shot while picking up a vehicle as directed by the owner, Andrew Zelenyansky. Communicar appealed the Board’s finding that an employer-employee relationship existed and that the death occurred within the course of employment, arguing Kurzyna was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship due to Communicar’s extensive control over drivers. The court also concluded there was a strong nexus between Kurzyna's employment and his presence at the murder scene.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLimousine ServiceFatal AccidentNew York State Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1992

Claim of Stokes v. Permanente

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury after being struck by a car while crossing a street from a parking lot to her workplace. This decision and an amended decision were subsequently appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the injury occurred while the claimant was entering the employment premises, thus arising out of and in the course of her employment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision and amended decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryCompensable InjuryGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
0
Case No. ADJ763837 (RDG 0127177) ADJ3894868 (RDG 0129247) ADJ2280504 (RDG 0129248)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JONI LAMKIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding applicant sustained three industrial injuries. The Board found the original decision flawed due to inadequate reasoning by the judge and the Qualified Medical Examiner regarding disability ratings under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The Court rescinded the prior order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, citing insufficient explanation for deviation from AMA Guides and a lack of clear findings on separate injuries. This decision mandates that future reports and awards must provide detailed justifications for disability ratings and clearly delineate findings for distinct injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJoni LamkinDepartment of TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundADJ763837ADJ3894868ADJ2280504ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. ADJ3445477 (RDG 0108598)
Regular
Apr 21, 2011

DENNIS NEWELL (Deceased) DEBORAH NEWELL (Widow) vs. FORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a widow's claim for death benefits due to an alleged Serious and Willful Misconduct by the employer, Ford Construction Company. The Appeals Board previously rescinded a decision finding such misconduct. The applicant now seeks reconsideration, arguing the Board's prior decision was inconsistent with an appellate court ruling concerning specific OSHA Safety Orders. The Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the applicant waived the issue of Safety Order 4999(b)(1) and that, despite the appellate court's mention of Safety Order 5042(a)(6) without a specific finding, the overall appellate decision negated the Serious and Willful claim. Therefore, the Board affirmed its prior decision and amended a finding to explicitly state no violation of Safety Order 5042 occurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code 4553Labor Code 4553.1Safety Order 5002Safety Order 4999(b)(1)Safety Order 5042(a)(6)RemittiturFindings and AwardRes Judicata
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 28,229 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