Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8954364

Regular

Jul 06, 2015

MARK FINNEY vs. ZURICH INSURANCE, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ8954364, involved applicant Mark Finney seeking reconsideration of a decision that denied permanent impairment from a left eye injury. Finney argued he had developed glaucoma and sustained vision loss due to the injury. The Workers' Compensation Judge found no substantial evidence that the glaucoma was caused by the injury, nor was there sufficient evidence of specific vision loss as defined by the AMA Guides. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied, upholding the original decision that while future complications could arise, there was no current permanent impairment.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedPermanent ImpairmentLeft Eye InjuryGlaucomaVision LossAMA GuidesPrimary Treating PhysicianBilateral Vision LossMyopic Astigmatism

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Boyce v. Michelangelo General Contractors

The case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions related to a claimant’s injury. The employer challenged findings that the claimant suffered from causally related sympathetic glaucoma of the right eye due to an October 20, 1984 left eye injury, that the claimant was entitled to continuing disability benefits, and that the claimant was totally disabled. The Board’s conclusions were supported by the claimant’s physician’s testimony, despite conflicting medical evidence. Evidence of the claimant’s unstable condition and ongoing treatment justified the continuing disability award. Furthermore, the varying corrected vision and uncorrected vision, along with testimony of total disability, provided substantial evidence for the total disability finding, without requiring total blindness. The decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed.

GlaucomaEye Injury CompensationDisability ClaimMedical CausationConflicting Medical TestimonyBoard FindingsAffirmation of DecisionAppellate Court ReviewPanel DecisionConcurrence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Joe Ballard v. Arch Insurance Company and Transforce Inc.

Joe Ballard, an employee, appealed a summary judgment that favored his employer, Transforce, Inc., and its insurer, Arch Insurance Company, in a workers' compensation dispute. Ballard claimed a work-related left eye injury aggravated his pre-existing glaucoma, leading to vision loss. The Carrier Parties argued the vision loss stemmed from the pre-existing condition, not the injury. The core issues on appeal included the qualifications of the designated doctor, Dr. Philip Rothenberg, and whether factual disputes existed concerning the injury's extent, Ballard's date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) of January 25, 2011, and his zero percent impairment rating. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Dr. Rothenberg was qualified and that no genuine fact issues precluded summary judgment on the extent of injury, MMI, or impairment rating.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementGlaucomaEye InjuryCausationDesignated DoctorMedical EvidencePre-existing Condition

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

MARK FINNEY vs. ZURICH INSURANCE, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedPermanent ImpairmentLeft Eye InjuryGlaucomaVision LossAMA GuidesPrimary Treating PhysicianBilateral Vision LossMyopic Astigmatism

Claim of Boyce v. Michelangelo General Contractors

GlaucomaEye Injury CompensationDisability ClaimMedical CausationConflicting Medical TestimonyBoard FindingsAffirmation of DecisionAppellate Court ReviewPanel DecisionConcurrence

Joe Ballard v. Arch Insurance Company and Transforce Inc.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementGlaucomaEye InjuryCausationDesignated DoctorMedical EvidencePre-existing Condition