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. CV-23-1425
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Harold Hanson (dec'd) Donna Hanson

The Appellate Division reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to Donna Hanson for her deceased husband, Harold Hanson. Harold, a field service technician for General Electric, died from an acute aortic dissection, which claimant alleged was work-related. The case involved extensive procedural history, including a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially establishing the claim, followed by the Board's rescission and subsequent preclusion of claimant's medical evidence, specifically reports from Dr. Stern and Dr. Basri. The WCLJ ultimately disallowed the claim due to a lack of medical evidence, a decision affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division found the Board's reasoning for precluding evidence inconsistent with its assertion that claimant had "ample opportunity" to submit proof, and also noted the Board's reliance on an inaccurate reading of the record, necessitating a remittal for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits ClaimCausal RelationshipAortic DissectionHypertensionMedical Report AdmissibilityProcedural ErrorsPresumption of CompensabilityBurden ShiftingAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01409 [236 AD3d 1151]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Matter of Hanson v. General Elec. Co.

Claimant Donna Hanson sought workers' compensation death benefits for her spouse, a field service technician, who died from an acute aortic dissection after collapsing at work. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) later reversed, finding a lack of causally-related medical evidence after precluding claimant's expert reports due to procedural issues. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, citing inconsistencies and reliance on an inaccurate reading of the record regarding the preclusion of claimant's medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipPresumption of CompensabilityAortic DissectionHypertensionMedical EvidenceReport PreclusionAdministrative ReviewAdmissibility of Evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ298068 (SFO 0488248) ADJ1346879 (SFO 0488249) ADJ381907 (SFO 0488250) ADJ2541672 (SFO 0509679) ADJ3779600 (SFO 0509681)
Regular
Nov 13, 2008

DAVID HANSON vs. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.

This case concerns multiple admitted industrial injuries to David Hanson's left ankle and knees while employed by ABF Freight Systems. The Appeals Board rescinded the trial judge's award, finding insufficient development of the medical record regarding apportionment of permanent disability. The matter is returned to the trial level for further expert opinion from the agreed medical evaluator and potentially a new physician to clarify apportionment issues, particularly concerning prior knee injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code section 4664Labor Code section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Cumulative InjurySpecific Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ2752568 (SAL 0109989)
Regular
Jun 16, 2011

REBECCA HANSON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves determining which Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) applies to Rebecca Hanson's 2003 industrial injury. The employer argued the 2005 PDRS should apply, reducing her rating from 74% to 42%, as they continued paying temporary disability beyond January 1, 2005. However, the Board found that the employer's October 8, 2003 notice of temporary disability termination, even if later rectified, did not trigger the exception for the 1997 PDRS. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, found the 2005 PDRS applicable, and remanded the case for a new rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code section 4660(d)1997 PDRS2005 PDRSTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityLabor Code section 4061 NoticeMultiple Disabilities TableAldi v. Carr
References
5
Case No. ADJ6650878
Regular
Dec 09, 2015

BRIDGETTE HUNTER vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS; YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Bridgette Hunter's Petition for Reconsideration regarding her Stipulated Award for industrial injuries to her spine and psyche. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, who recommended denial. Although the ALJ noted the petition might be untimely, the Board found insufficient proof of service to make that determination, thus denying reconsideration on other grounds. The applicant's claims of fraud, excess of power, and insufficient evidence were rejected as the award was based on agreed-upon Agreed Medical Evaluator reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated Awarduntimely filingproof of serviceAME reportsBridgette HunterDepartment of Social Services IHSSYork Risk Services GroupWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Hanson

Claimant was discharged from a bottle recycling plant for allegedly participating in a scheme to misappropriate deposit bottles. After an initial agreement and rehire, an arbitration hearing found the claimant served as a lookout for unauthorized transfers, validating his discharge. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld this finding, concluding that the claimant's actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, a decision which the court affirmed on appeal due to substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductArbitrationDisqualificationEmployee DischargeBottle RecyclingAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLookoutTheft Scheme
References
3
Case No. ADJ11148584, ADJ11607816
Regular
Dec 31, 2018

BRIDGETT LE BOY vs. KAISER PERMANENTE

The applicant sought reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) for $\$28,000.00$ related to back and lower extremity injuries. She argued she would not have settled if she had known her functional capacity test, crucial for her return to work, was approved on the same day as the settlement. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the applicant's allegations and the Board's broad discretion. The OACR was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the stipulations should be set aside.

Order Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPharmacy TechnicianFunctional Capacity TestMandatory Settlement ConferenceAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation JudgeGood CauseFraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barth v. Hanson Aggregates, Inc.

In 2005, a crusher operator suffered a fatal myocardial infarction. His widow, the claimant, sought workers' compensation death benefits, which the employer and its carrier disputed, arguing no causal link to employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim. The claimant appealed, challenging the admissibility of the employer's expert physician's report and arguing for the presumption of compensability for unwitnessed deaths during employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the employer had substantially complied with evidentiary rules and provided substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, ultimately concluding that the decedent's death was not causally related to his employment.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipExpert WitnessEvidence AdmissibilityPresumption of CompensabilityOccupational DiseaseEmployer DefenseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Case No. STK 199292
Regular
Dec 17, 2007

JAMES SINGLETON vs. HANSON CONCRETE, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied James Singleton's petition for reconsideration of a stipulated award for industrial injuries to his back, neck, and psyche. Singleton sought to set aside the settlement, claiming he was misled and that the disability rating was inadequate. The Board found no legal grounds, such as fraud or mutual mistake, to overturn the executed stipulation, which is considered a binding contract absent good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardApplicantDefendantIndustrial InjuriesTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityLife PensionAgreed Medical Examiner
References
4
Case No. ADJ8595235
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Thomas Carroll vs. Lehigh Hanson Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's initial petition for removal as procedurally improper, as it challenged a notice of intent rather than a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, which sought to overturn the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying the supplemental petition, especially since the WCJ left open the possibility of allowing the deposition after trial. A dissenting commissioner argued that the deposition of Dr. Dell was necessary to update his opinion and ensure a complete record for apportionment, similar to Dr. Russell's deposition.

Petition for RemovalNotice of IntentionQuash DepositionPQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureSupplemental PetitionDr. DellDr. RussellSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 18 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