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

Thomas v. Sullivan

Gertrude Thomas challenged the Social Security Administration's termination of her widow's benefits. After living with Joseph Thomas for 47 years in a common law marriage and receiving benefits, she was denied them following his death because his prior, undissolved ceremonial marriage to Janie Thomas was deemed valid. Gertrude argued that 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(B) violated equal protection by granting benefits to those in invalid ceremonial marriages but not invalid common law marriages. The District Court upheld the denial, finding a rational basis for the distinction in preventing fraud and easing administration, and dismissed the complaint.

Social Security ActWidow's BenefitsCommon Law Marriage ValidityCeremonial Marriage ValidityEqual Protection ChallengeRational Basis TestStatutory InterpretationFraud PreventionAdministrative EfficiencyDeemed Widow Provision

References

Case No. ADJ7403487

Regular

Jun 09, 2011

GERTRUDE RAKESTRAW vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, PMA, GALLAGHER SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the original award regarding applicant Gertrude Rakestraw's earnings at the time of injury. The Board amended the Findings and Award to reflect a corrected weekly earning of $285.37 and a corresponding permanent disability rate of $190.25 per week. This correction resulted in an adjusted permanent disability indemnity totaling $10,558.88. The amended award also included a 15 percent increase for remaining permanent disability payments and an attorney fee deduction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude RakestrawGoodwill IndustriesPMAGallagher ServicesFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Permanent Disability RateTemporary Disability Rate

References

Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)

Regular

Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Woodford v. Apfel

Gertrude Woodford appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her Supplemental Security Income Disability benefits. The Appeals Council declined review of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, making it final. Woodford challenged this denial, presenting new medical evidence from her treating physician, Dr. Kulak, which further clarified her pre-hearing disability and work-related limitations. The District Court found that the Appeals Council erred in not accepting this new, material evidence and that the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination and assessment of Woodford's subjective pain testimony were not supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration, directing the Commissioner to apply the treating physician's rule and re-examine Woodford's pain testimony.

Social Security Disability InsuranceSupplemental Security IncomeDisability Benefits DenialFractured AnkleResidual Functional CapacityAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council ReviewTreating Physician RuleSubjective Pain TestimonyMedical Impairment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Williston v. Eggleston

Plaintiffs Gertrude Williston and the Cummins family initiated a class action against New York City and State officials, Verna Eggleston and Robert Doar, alleging violations of the Food Stamp Act under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for untimely provision of food stamps and inadequate program oversight. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of private right of action, standing, mootness, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court denied the motions, affirming that plaintiffs had suffered demonstrable injury and possessed standing to pursue their claims. It further determined that the Food Stamp Act confers privately enforceable rights under § 1983 and that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the action seeking prospective injunctive relief. Consequently, the case was allowed to proceed to address the alleged systemic failures in food stamp delivery.

Food StampsClass ActionMotion to Dismiss42 U.S.C. § 1983Food Stamp ActTimeliness of BenefitsAdministrative RemediesStandingMootnessEleventh Amendment

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Thomas v. Sullivan

GERTRUDE RAKESTRAW vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, PMA, GALLAGHER SERVICES, INC.

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Woodford v. Apfel

Williston v. Eggleston

Food StampsClass ActionMotion to Dismiss42 U.S.C. § 1983Food Stamp ActTimeliness of BenefitsAdministrative RemediesStandingMootnessEleventh Amendment