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
Jan 29, 2010

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Ruth Fowler, an exotic dancer, sued Scores Holding Company, Inc., alleging sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions at Scores West, invoking the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Labor Law. Scores Holding moved to dismiss, arguing Fowler was an independent contractor and not its employee. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Fowler sufficiently alleged an employee relationship and that Scores Holding could be considered her employer under the single and joint employer doctrines. The court concluded that Fowler's claims for discrimination, hostile work environment, and unlawful wage deductions were facially plausible under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWage DeductionsIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationJoint EmployerMotion to DismissFederal Civil ProcedureHuman Rights LawLabor Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1980

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff, a former chemical technician and production chemist for GAF Corporation, developed urinary tract problems and was eventually terminated due to chemical exposure. She subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits and initiated a lawsuit against GAF, alleging fraud, intentional tort, and negligence, seeking damages for future bladder cancer. The Supreme Court at Special Term denied GAF's motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the court determined that the plaintiff's injury constituted an occupational disease under the Workers' Compensation Law, thus precluding a common-law personal injury action. Furthermore, the court found the complaint lacked sufficient allegations of intentional harm by the employer to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted GAF's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Occupational DiseaseBladder CancerChemical ExposureWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional TortFraudNegligenceMotion to DismissPersonal Injury ActionAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ7279904
Regular
Jan 26, 2017

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the $69\%$ permanent disability finding for psychiatric injury lacked substantial evidence because the treating physician's GAF score correction was unexplained. The Board found the physician adequately explained the correction by detailing how the proper application of GAF criteria resulted in a revised score. Furthermore, the defendant failed to pursue discovery or object to the revised report, which was admitted into evidence. Therefore, the WCJ's finding on psychiatric permanent disability was upheld.

GAF scorepermanent disabilitypsychiatric injurylumbar spinecervical spinesubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJprimary treating physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses cross-motions for post-trial relief in a class action concerning retiree medical benefits involving two plaintiff classes, the IAM and Chemical Workers, against GAF Corporation. Senior District Judge Munson denies motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial from both the Chemical Workers class and GAF, upholding the jury's special verdict regarding the vesting of benefits. The court grants the IAM class's motion for a permanent injunction, preventing GAF from increasing medical premiums for its members, and refers the matter to a magistrate judge for damage calculation. Additionally, the non-classwide claims of the individual IAM plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice.

Retiree Medical BenefitsClass ActionPost-Trial MotionsCollective Bargaining AgreementERISATaft-Hartley ActVesting of BenefitsHealth Insurance PremiumsPermanent InjunctionDamages Referral
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This workers' compensation appeal concerns employee Bobby George, who developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after 38 years of heavy production and supervisory work for GAF and its predecessors, involving repetitive lifting and typing. Dr. Stewart F. Stowers diagnosed the condition, performed a carpal tunnel release, and estimated a 5% permanent impairment to both arms. The trial court found the injury compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 15% to each extremity. The employer, GAF, appealed the causation finding and the extent of the disability award, while the employee appealed the disallowance of incurred medical expenses. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the finding of causation and the extent of vocational disability, modified the permanent partial disability award to clarify it as 15% to both arms, and further modified the judgment to include $3,753.00 in previously disallowed medical expenses. As modified, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromePermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ExpensesCausationRepetitive Strain InjuryVocational DisabilityScheduled Member InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeal
References
8
Case No. ADJ8530656, ADJ8553993
Regular
May 03, 2019

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, amending the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Board disagreed with the initial finding of 67% permanent disability, determining that the psychiatric impairment rating should be increased based on the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. This adjustment, utilizing an analogical rating method and considering the applicant's GAF score of 50, increased the total permanent disability to 73% and will include a life pension. The Board upheld the rejection of the vocational expert's total disability finding due to improper consideration of the applicant's age.

Agreed Medical ExaminerAlmaraz/GuzmanGAF scorepermanent disability ratingvocational expertsubstantial medical evidencerebuttal of scheduled ratingindustrial injuryspecific injurycumulative trauma injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2012

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves Paul A. Schlichting (Plaintiff) seeking supplemental social security income benefits (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB) from Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue (Defendant). Plaintiff appealed the denial of benefits by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), whose decision was upheld by the Appeals Council. Plaintiff then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, while Defendant filed a cross-motion. Magistrate Judge Bianchini recommended granting Defendant's motion and denying Plaintiff's. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, affirming the denial of benefits and dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint, finding no reversible error in the ALJ's assessment of the treating physician's rule, credibility, and GAF score.

Social Security BenefitsDisability Insurance Benefits (DIB)Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)Treating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentGlobal Functioning Assessment (GAF)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Medical Opinion WeightSubstantial Evidence Review
References
60
Case No. 73 Civ. 1540
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1980

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, addresses the constitutionality of a new examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants. Plaintiffs and defendants sought approval of the exam and summary judgment against intervenors who opposed the score adjustment and the job performance evaluation component. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted both requests, finding the revised examination procedure compliant with EEOC Guidelines and federal anti-discrimination laws, and the job performance rating sufficiently objective under state law, concluding that the score adjustment was not an impermissible quota but rather served to balance the examination's validated procedure.

Employment DiscriminationCorrectional ServicesCivil Service ExamsAffirmative ActionSummary JudgmentEEOC GuidelinesTest ValidityMinority PreferenceJudicial ReviewFederal Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

In this workers' compensation case, the Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's award of 90% permanent partial disability for hearing loss to employee Bobby R. George against Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation. The Court considered GAF's appeal regarding a statute of limitations defense and the extent of disability. Reversing the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel's decision, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying GAF's post-trial motion to amend its answer to include the statute of limitations defense due to undue delay and potential prejudice to the opposing party. Furthermore, the Court reinstated the trial court's finding of 90% permanent partial disability, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the initial award.

Permanent Partial DisabilityHearing Loss ClaimStatute of Limitations DefensePleading AmendmentTrial Court DiscretionVocational DisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyIndustrial Noise ExposureEmployer LiabilityNotice of Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming an order that enjoined the promotion of correctional sergeants based on an unconstitutionally discriminatory examination. The current proceeding addresses the approval of a new selection examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a motion for summary judgment against the Fitzpatrick intervenors. Intervenors objected to a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants and the perceived subjectivity of the job performance evaluation component. The court granted both the application and the motion, finding that the proposed examination, including the score adjustment, satisfied the requirements set forth by the Second Circuit and the EEOC Guidelines, and met state law objectivity standards.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionCorrectional SergeantsCivil Service ExaminationEqual Employment Opportunity Commission GuidelinesTest ValiditySummary JudgmentRemandJudicial ReviewRacial Bias
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 39 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