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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

In a worker's compensation case, the Appellee sustained an incisional hernia and sought total and permanent disability benefits. The Appellant argued that the injury was limited to a hernia under Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 8306, sec. 12b, which would limit compensation to twenty-six weeks for a successful surgical repair. The trial court disregarded jury findings that the injury was confined to a hernia and that the operation was successful, instead awarding total and permanent benefits. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the injury met the statutory criteria for a compensable hernia and the repair was successful. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Appellee for twenty-six weeks of compensation as provided by the hernia statute.

Worker's CompensationIncisional HerniaHernia StatuteTexas LawJury FindingsTrial Court ErrorAppellate ReviewRemandDisability BenefitsMedical Examination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Daniella Capps, an x-ray technician, developed an incisional hernia at the site of a prior surgical incision while lifting a patient at Cheatham Medical Center, owned by Goodlark Medical Center. The trial court denied her workers' compensation claim, applying T.C.A. § 50-6-212(a)(5), the 'hernia statute,' reasoning that the surgical incision constituted a pre-existing rupture. The appellate court disagreed with this interpretation, distinguishing a healed surgical incision from an actual pre-existing hernia or rupture. The court ruled that Capps's hernia was a new injury directly caused by her work-related accident, meeting all statutory criteria for compensability despite her inherent susceptibility due to prior surgery. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment in Capps's favor.

Hernia StatuteT.C.A. § 50-6-212(a)Pre-existing ConditionSurgical IncisionIncisional HerniaWork-related InjuryStatutory InterpretationTrial Court ReversalCompensabilityAbdominal Weakness
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

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

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found that the claimant sustained an occupational hernia. The claimant initially filed a claim in 1976 for an injury on July 12, 1973, which was dismissed by a referee due to the two-year limitation under section 28 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Subsequently, the claimant filed a new claim, and a referee found an occupational disease and causal relationship for an incisional hernia, setting the disablement date as January 19, 1976. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing that the first dismissal was res judicata. The board affirmed the referee's decision, citing its broad powers of continuing jurisdiction under section 123 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court affirmed the board's determination, finding substantial medical evidence supporting the conclusion that heavy lifting and bending led to the occupational hernia.

Occupational HerniaWorkers' Compensation LawRes JudicataContinuing JurisdictionTimeliness of ClaimMedical EvidenceBoard DecisionAppealCausal RelationshipIncisional Hernia
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This worker's compensation case addresses a claim for benefits stemming from the recurrence of an occupational hernia. The employee, who had a compensable hernia in 1981, experienced a recurrence in 1982 while working, leading to further surgeries and temporary total disability benefits from the insurer. The trial court denied additional compensation for the recurrence, citing T.C.A. § 50-6-212(a)(5) which states a hernia must not exist prior to the accident. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that this statute applies to pre-existing non-compensable hernias, not to the recurrence or aggravation of a previously compensable one. The Court held that an employee is entitled to further benefits if a compensable hernia recurs or is aggravated in the course of employment, and remanded the case for a new trial to determine causation and additional benefits.

worker's compensationherniarecurrenceoccupational injurystatutory interpretationTennessee Supreme Courtremandtemporary total disabilitypermanent partial disabilitycausation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This workers' compensation appeal concerns Robert Phillip Mannery's claim for a right inguinal hernia sustained while working for Wal-Mart Distribution Center in 1998. The central issue was whether the hernia existed prior to the accident, which would bar recovery under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-212(a)(5). Despite a 1994 medical note mentioning a small right inguinal hernia, the trial court found that the 1998 hernia was a new injury in a different location, a finding supported by Mannery's testimony. The trial court awarded 21% permanent partial disability, which was affirmed by the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel and subsequently by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The Supreme Court emphasized that the statute refers to the current hernia resulting from the accident, not a past, unrelated condition.

Workers' CompensationHernia ClaimPre-existing ConditionCausationMedical TestimonyPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewInguinal HerniaStatutory InterpretationCredibility Determination
References
10
Case No. ADJ8319455
Regular
Aug 12, 2013

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior finding of industrial injury. The WCAB found that the medical evidence was not substantial to establish that the applicant's incisional hernias arose from employment. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further development of the record and a new decision by the judge. The Board also noted procedural defects in the defendant's petition, including lack of verification and improper formatting.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryHerniaStore ManagerWarehousemanPost-termination DefenseSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
15
Case No. 2018-03-1517
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2019

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

Phillip Mullis Sr., an employee of Blount County Community Action Agency (BCCAA), filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking benefits for an alleged work-related hernia. Mullis claimed he sustained a hernia in September 2018 while lifting a box of food, experiencing sharp pain and a 'pop'. BCCAA disputed the claim, stating Mullis provided no medical evidence, failed to give timely notice, and time records contradicted his account. Furthermore, BCCAA presented evidence from co-workers and VA records indicating Mullis had a pre-existing right inguinal hernia since 2011. The Court found Mullis failed to definitively prove the hernia criteria, including a work injury resulting in a hernia, immediate appearance, immediate follow-up to an accident, and that it did not exist prior to the accident. Therefore, the Court denied his claim.

HerniaDenied BenefitsExpedited HearingPre-existing ConditionTimely NoticeMedical EvidenceEmployment InjuryVA RecordsEmployee TestimonyEmployer Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09275 [178 AD3d 1057]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

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

The plaintiff, Constance Oliver, commenced a medical malpractice action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., alleging errors during a January 2014 surgery at Kings County Hospital Center and a subsequent failure to timely diagnose and treat an incisional hernia. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendant's expert affirmation insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding the allegations of delayed diagnosis and treatment and speculative causation arguments.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentIncisional HerniaProximate CauseTimely DiagnosisAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofHospital NegligenceKings County Hospital
References
8
Case No. ADJ10222181 (MF) ADJ10222198
Regular
Jan 30, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns claims for hernias and spine injuries sustained by a truck driver. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the finding that hernias were work-related, noting the medical evaluator's conflicting opinions on causation. The Board determined further medical development is required on the hernia issue due to contradictory expert testimony. Additionally, the issue of reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment was deferred pending the resolution of the hernia claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAMJES INCK&B Freight SystemsSam Alboudoorherniahiatal herniainguinal hernialumbar spinethoracic spinePQME
References
0
Case No. ADJ300802 (AHM 0109743) ADJ2310921 (AHM 0115931)
Regular
Nov 21, 2008

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

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to establish a permanent and stationary date of January 3, 2005, for applicant's abdominal hernia injuries. The Board deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorneys' fees, returning the case to the trial level for re-rating based on hernia/abdominal injuries rather than spinal injuries. The Board affirmed the finding of an industrial inguinal hernia injury, while also noting that the defendant did not provide evidence of unreasonable refusal of medical treatment for the hernias.

HerniaUmbilical herniaInguinal herniaLow back painPermanent and stationary dateTemporary total disabilityMedical treatmentAttorney's feesReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 128 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