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

Dailey v. Southern Heel Co.

Joe Thomas Dailey, an employee of Southern Heel Company, suffered a work-related left knee injury in 1983. He had prior work-related injuries, leading to a claim against the Second Injury Fund. A prior settlement between Dailey, Southern Heel, and Wausau Insurance Company was set aside due to the Second Injury Fund not being a party with proper notice as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-206. The trial court found the employer liable for 60% permanent partial impairment to Dailey's left leg and the Second Injury Fund liable for the remaining compensation up to the statutory maximum of $54,400, deeming Dailey totally and permanently disabled. The employer appealed the setting aside of the settlement and the liability, arguing for tender of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's awards, finding no legal or equitable basis for the employee to tender the settlement sum, and remanded the case for a determination of expenses incurred by Dailey for a surety bond.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySecond Injury FundSettlement DisputeJudicial ReviewRemandProcedural Due ProcessTender Rule ExceptionPermanent Total DisabilityMedical Impairment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gibbs v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

A claimant filed for workers' compensation due to work-related plantar fasciitis and heel spurs. The self-insured employer controverted the claim, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found accident and notice based on the claimant's testimony. The employer sought review from the Workers’ Compensation Board, which refused to consider the application, deeming the WCLJ's decision non-final and imposing a penalty for delay. This appeal ensued, and the Appellate Division dismissed it as premature. The court ruled that the Board's decision, declining review and imposing a penalty, was interlocutory and not presently appealable.

Workers' CompensationAppeal DismissedInterlocutory OrderPremature AppealWorkers' Compensation BoardSelf-Insured EmployerAccident and NoticePlantar FasciitisHeel SpursPenalty Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety

Plaintiff Joyce K. Riley suffered from plantar fasciitis and heel spurs due to repetitive manual labor at Collins & Aikman. Despite initial treatment and surgery by Dr. J. Wills Oglesby, her condition worsened. A second opinion from Dr. Alan S. Henson led to another surgery and a diagnosis of permanent partial disability, causing a permanent limp and back pain. The trial court awarded temporary total disability benefits and permanent partial disability. Defendants appealed on grounds of insufficient notice, the period of temporary total disability, and the nature of the disability. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding adequate notice, justification for the disability period, and that the injury extended beyond a scheduled member to affect the body as a whole.

Worker's Compensation AppealTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityNotice RequirementsPlantar FasciitisHeel SpursRepetitive TraumaOccupational InjuryMedical EvidenceCausation
References
10
Case No. 03-15-00529-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2015

Matthew Eric Kershner v. Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC

Matthew Eric Kershner, an electrical apprentice for Spur Electric, Inc., was injured while working on a construction project for Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC. Kershner sustained a left knee injury after falling in a slippery cleaning solution. He received workers' compensation benefits from Spur Electric but also sued Samsung for negligence, claiming a breach of duty to maintain safe premises and warn of latent defects. Samsung filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the "exclusive-remedy defense" under the Texas Labor Code, as it purchased workers' compensation coverage for subcontractors' employees. Kershner argued that the defense did not apply because Spur Electric was an independent contractor, not a dependent one, raising a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court granted Samsung's motion for summary judgment, leading to this appeal, where Kershner argues that Samsung failed to conclusively establish its right to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkplace AccidentTexas Labor CodeAppellate BriefTrial Court Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emerson v. American Broadcasting Co.

A claimant, employed by American Broadcasting Company, suffered a fractured right heel in 1980 and received compensation. In 1983, a claim for a left knee injury, alleged to be a result of the 1980 accident, was filed. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed the knee claim untimely and unrelated. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the only medical evidence supported the claimant's position that the initial heel injury caused the subsequent knee injury, thus making the claim not time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers’ Compensation Law § 28Injury Relation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Insurance Co. v. Hambric

Ronnell Hambrie suffered a back injury in 1990 while working for Foster-Forbes, receiving worker's compensation from The Home Insurance. In 1993, he sustained a heel injury at a new employer, Georgia Pacific, and was still receiving benefits for it when his case against Home Insurance went to trial in 1994. The jury found Hambrie totally and permanently disabled from the back injury, leading to a judgment against Home Insurance. On appeal, Home Insurance argued the court erred by not submitting a question on the subsequent heel injury's contribution to Hambrie's disability. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding for a new trial, also addressing concerns about the court reporter's transcription practices.

worker's compensationsubsequent injurydisability contributioncourt reporter dutiesstatement of factsappellate procedureTexas lawvideo depositionshorthand reportinglegal ethics
References
5
Case No. STK 0196520
Regular
Jul 17, 2008

GARY L. WIKA vs. ROEBERS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sustained an industrial injury to his left heel in March 2004. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's award of 74% permanent disability, arguing the wrong rating schedule was applied. The Board granted reconsideration to extend the defendant's time for calculating a life pension commutation. The Board affirmed the original award, finding the prior rating schedule applicable due to evidence of permanent disability from a treating physician before January 1, 2005.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleSB 899AMA GuidesLabor Code 4660(d)Treating Physician ReportPermanent and Stationary StatusComminuted Calcaneous FractureBoehler AngleTalocalcaneal Joint Fracture
References
3
Case No. ADJ518435
Regular
Apr 20, 2010

Alphonso Durazo vs. PPG INDUSTRIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge, particularly regarding the applicant's credibility. Sub-rosa surveillance films and medical evaluations by QMEs demonstrated that the applicant made multiple false statements about his disability and complaints, leading to a plea of no contest to workers' compensation fraud. The applicant's award of future medical treatment for his heel was based on a finding of bruising, not the extent of disability he claimed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJ credibilitysub-rosa filmsdisabilitysubjective complaintsindustrial injurywarehouse workerPAK truckTemporary Total Disability
References
1
Case No. LAO 0854553
Regular
Oct 01, 2007

DANIEL A. LONG vs. RYANS EXPRESS MOTORCOACH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's temporary disability payments for a right shoulder injury terminated on February 28, 2007. The Board ruled that the surgical removal of a distal clavicle spur does not constitute an "amputation" under Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2), which requires severance of an external body part. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to extended temporary disability benefits beyond the statutory 104-week limit.

Distal clavicleAmputation exceptionSection 4656(c)(2)Temporary disability termination104-week limitation240-week limitationRight shoulder surgeryRotator cuff tearJacob Tauber M.D.Hawkins v. Amberwood Products
References
2
Case No. ADJ3341513 (VNO 0517589) ADJ4150961 (VNO 0517583)
Regular
Sep 08, 2009

Jeannie Lefevre vs. TRW, INC., CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., CNA CLAIMS PLUS-PORTLAND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jeannie Lefevre's petition for reconsideration, upholding a judge's decision that her admitted left great toe injury did not cause subsequent injuries to her ankles, heels, knees, hips, or back, nor a cumulative trauma injury. The Board found Dr. Kornblum's opinion, which cited Lefevre's extensive pre-existing foot issues, was more persuasive than Dr. Capen's. Defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as the issues raised were subsequently corrected by an Amended Findings and Award, from which they failed to seek further reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaApportionmentMedical EvidencePermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityAmended Findings and AwardQualified Medical Evaluator
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 31 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