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 Smith v. Casey

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding the computation of a claimant’s average weekly wage under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 14. The board initially disregarded subdivision 1 of section 14, which mandates a specific formula (300 times the average daily wage for a six-day worker employed "substantially the whole of the year"), and instead used the claimant's actual annual earnings ($2,345.33 for 309 days worked) because it was higher than the formula's result ($2,277). The court reversed this decision, asserting that section 14 establishes a universally applicable formula for six-day employees who worked "substantially the whole of the year," regardless of whether they worked slightly more or less than 300 days. The court found that using subdivision 3 for alternative methods was inappropriate and distinguished previous cases cited by the board. The matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's interpretation, with costs awarded to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Average Weekly WageWorkmen's Compensation LawWage ComputationSix-day WorkerSubstantially Whole YearStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversed and RemittedWorker's Compensation BoardEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State

Justice Smith's concurring opinion emphasizes that New York State's constitutional requirement for a "sound basic education" now necessitates the opportunity for a high school education that prepares students for competitive employment and higher education, moving beyond rudimentary skills. The opinion critically analyzes the State's existing 54-formula system for distributing education aid, specifically highlighting its failure to adequately fund high-need districts like New York City due to its inherent complexity and susceptibility to political manipulation. It asserts that the Regents Learning Standards, while rigorous, constitute the minimum skills necessary for productive citizenship, and that the State bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure all students have the opportunity to meet these standards. Justice Smith concludes that the current funding formulas are incompatible with the Legislature's duty to provide a sound education to New York City students, advocating for a statewide reform that eliminates the existing formula for New York City, determines the actual costs required for a sound basic education across all districts, and guarantees sufficient funding for every student.

Education FundingSound Basic EducationFiscal EquityState Aid FormulasRegents Learning StandardsHigh School EducationConstitutional MandateEducational PolicySchool Finance ReformNew York City Schools
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geddes v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the proposed distribution of a $1,800,000.00 wrongful death settlement for the estate of Warren H. Geddes, who died in a plane crash. The plaintiffs, including the widow Leticia Geddes and three minor children, presented a distribution plan that substantially increased the widow's share compared to the 'In re Kaiser's Estate' formula. U.S. Magistrate Judge Chrein expressed concerns regarding this proposed allocation and the absence of a guardian ad litem to protect the minor children's interests. Acknowledging criticisms of the Kaiser formula, the court found insufficient justification for such a significant deviation in favor of the spouse. Consequently, the court ordered the appointment of a guardian ad litem due to the inherent conflict of interest and directed the plaintiffs to provide detailed documentation of expenditures made for the children's sole benefit.

Wrongful DeathSettlement DistributionGuardian Ad LitemInfant's InterestsPecuniary LossKaiser FormulaConflict of InterestAttorney FeesWorkers Compensation LienEstate Law
References
14
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Feb 03, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board holds that the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule is rebuttable and establishes a specific, formula-based method for doing so. The matter was remanded to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this new methodology.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttalRAND StudyLabor Code section 4660Vocational RehabilitationProportional Earnings LossWhole Person ImpairmentRating to Loss Ratio
References
31
Case No. SRO 0122159, SRO 0113249
Significant
Jun 09, 2005

Danny Nabors vs. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board holds that when awarding permanent disability after apportionment, the amount of indemnity is calculated by determining the overall percentage of permanent disability and then subtracting the percentage of permanent disability previously awarded, affirming the formula from Fuentes v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd.

En bancReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent disabilityLabor Code Section 4663Labor Code Section 4664Senate Bill 899Fuentes v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Formula AFormula B
References
19
Case No. ADJ1177048
En Banc
Feb 03, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board holds that the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) portion of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities is rebuttable and establishes a specific, multi-step method for doing so, based on the employee's individualized proportional earnings loss and a numeric formula consistent with Labor Code § 4660 and RAND Institute data.

DFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttableDiminished Future Earning CapacityLabor Code section 4660RAND dataProportional Earnings LossWhole Person ImpairmentEmployment Development DepartmentVocational Rehabilitation
References
31
Case No. ADJ1177048 (SFO 048779)
Regular
Dec 15, 2011

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case concerns an applicant's permanent disability benefits following an industrial injury. The Court of Appeal held that to rebut the 2005 rating schedule's earning capacity adjustment, an employee must demonstrate specific errors in the formula, data, or resulting calculation, or show the rating is inadequate for the injury's impact. The Court reversed a prior award and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and remanded to the WCJ for a new decision consistent with the Court of Appeal's opinion, allowing for further proceedings.

Remittitur2005 rating schedulediminished future earning capacityDFECearning capacity adjustmentscheduled ratingrebuttalpermanent partial disabilityapportionmenten banc decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ9971016
Regular
Aug 27, 2019

BALDEMAR GONZALEZ, JR. vs. MORGANITE INDUSTRIES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over the apportionment of permanent disability benefits for an applicant's hearing loss. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original award because the administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to provide the formula used to calculate the 16% permanent disability rating. Additionally, the WCAB found that the medical evaluator's report lacked sufficient reasoning to explain how the applicant's asymmetrical hearing loss was apportioned between industrial and non-industrial causes. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, potentially including a new medical report and deposition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentIndustrial InjuryNon-IndustrialOccupational Noise ExposureAsymmetrical Hearing LossQualified Medical EvaluatorOtology Report
References
10
Case No. ADJ9762954
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant claiming a cumulative injury to his cervical spine. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision, which had apportioned 48% of the applicant's current 80% permanent disability to a prior cervical spine injury. The Board found the defendant met its burden of proving overlap between the prior and subsequent injuries, thus reducing the disability award for the current injury. The applicant's argument that he should receive the dollar value difference between the two awards was also rejected, with the Board applying the established Fuentes Formula A for calculating benefits in multiple injury cases.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative InjuryCervical SpinePermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4664(b)KoppingAgreed Medical EvaluatorAlmaraz/Guzman
References
11
Case No. ADJ1481761 (SAC 0364589)
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

WANDA BOULT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional officer, Wanda Boult, seeking workers' compensation benefits for a cumulative trauma injury to her heart and cardiovascular system. The defendant, State of California, Department of Corrections, sought reconsideration of the finding that Ms. Boult is 100% permanently totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report. The court found that the defendant's argument regarding Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) was inapplicable because the applicant's award was based on lifetime temporary disability indemnity, not the formula in section 4658(d)(1).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 4658(d)Labor Code section 4659(b)Labor Code section 4662Correctional Counselor II SpecialistCumulative traumaHeart and Cardiovascular systemPrimary pulmonary hypertensionChronic supraventricular arrhythmias
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 29 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