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. 2017-06-2147
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

Sandoval, Salvador v. Mark Williamson d/b/a Tennessee Steel Structures

This workers' compensation case revolves around Salvador Sandoval, an employee, seeking increased permanent disability benefits after a work-related injury. The employer, Tennessee Steel Structures, contested the claim, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(F), which bars undocumented workers from recovering additional benefits. Sandoval challenged the constitutionality of this statute. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Nashville denied Sandoval's request for increased benefits, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the facial constitutionality of a state statute, citing appellate precedents. The decision noted that if a higher court found the statute unconstitutional, Sandoval would be entitled to stipulated benefits.

Undocumented WorkersConstitutional ChallengeJudicial AuthorityStatutory InterpretationPermanent Disability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityImmigration LawTennessee Code AnnotatedWorkers' Compensation ClaimsBenefit Denial
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Public Oversight Board

This case addresses the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (2-a) concerning death benefits for a surviving spouse and children upon the spouse’s remarriage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, a surviving spouse, was entitled to a lump-sum payment, and her two children's benefits should increase to 25% each immediately upon her remarriage. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the children's increased benefits should be delayed for two years, arguing for a pervasive 66% wage share maximum. The court rejected this argument, affirming the Board's decision, clarifying that the remarriage lump-sum payment is not an advance but a separate entitlement, and thus, the children's benefits increase immediately.

death benefitssurviving spouseremarriage benefitschildren's compensationWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationlump-sum paymentwage share maximumWorkers' Compensation Board decisionappellate affirmance
References
2
Case No. 2023-07-2338
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2024

Holloway, Christopher v. Natchez Trace Youth Academy

Christopher Holloway, a 47-year-old employee, sustained a left-knee injury at work while breaking up a fight. He sought increased benefits, contending his permanent disability rating should include left-knee arthritis in addition to a meniscal tear. The Court, however, upheld a one percent impairment rating based solely on the meniscal tear, concluding that while the work injury aggravated his preexisting arthritis symptoms, it did not primarily cause the arthritis or his current disablement. Despite this, the Court found Holloway reasonably resigned from his pre-injury job due to his knee condition, thus entitling him to increased benefits. The employer was ordered to pay $6,449.24 in permanent partial disability and increased benefits, plus medical treatment and court costs.

Knee InjuryMeniscal Tear RepairPreexisting ArthritisAggravation of InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityImpairment Rating DisputeIncreased Benefits AwardReturn-to-Work SuitabilityVoluntary Resignation JustificationMedical Expert Opinions
References
5
Case No. 2017-08-0024
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2020

Thomas, Alisha v. Federal Express Corp.

Alisha Thomas filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) seeking permanent total disability benefits or additional permanent partial benefits, which Federal Express Corp. disputed. The Court ruled that Ms. Thomas is entitled to increased permanent partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B) because she had not returned to work by the expiration of her initial compensation period, and her treating physician, Dr. Melvin Goldin, attributed her condition to the work injury at that time. However, the Court denied claims for additional benefits under section 50-6-242 and permanent total disability, as Dr. Goldin's later testimony revealed Ms. Thomas's condition had evolved beyond the initial somatic symptom disorder, and he could not definitively connect her advanced symptoms to the work injury at the time of the award. The awarded increased benefits totaled $3,379.01.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySomatic Symptom DisorderImpairment RatingRes JudicataMental Injury CompensabilityIncreased BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityTreating Physician TestimonyCausation StandardSettlement Agreement
References
5
Case No. 2020-05-0417
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

Baldwin, Donald v. Evers Construction Co., Inc.

Donald Baldwin sustained a compensable left upper-extremity injury while working for Evers Construction Co., Inc. He sought increased permanent partial disability benefits, arguing his post-injury position at Evers did not provide overtime, leading to a lower average weekly wage compared to his pre-injury role. Evers countered that by statute, Mr. Baldwin was not entitled to increased benefits because his post-injury hourly rate of $21.00 exceeded his pre-injury rate of $17.35. The Court, relying on case law interpreting 'wages' as hourly rate of pay for hourly employees, denied Mr. Baldwin's claim for increased permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage InterpretationOvertime BenefitsHourly RatePost-injury EmploymentBenefit DenialTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2006

Fortis Benefits v. Cantu

Vanessa Cantu suffered severe injuries in a car accident and sued multiple parties. Her medical insurer, Fortis Benefits, intervened, seeking subrogation for medical benefits paid under the policy. After Cantu settled with the defendants, Fortis pursued recovery from Cantu. Cantu argued that the equitable "made whole" doctrine barred Fortis's claim because her total losses exceeded the settlement amount plus the benefits Fortis paid. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Cantu. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "made whole" doctrine does not override an insurer's clear contractual subrogation rights. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Fortis's claims against Ford due to a pretrial agreement.

Insurance SubrogationMade Whole DoctrineContractual SubrogationEquitable SubrogationERISATexas LawInsurance Policy InterpretationPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSettlement Proceeds
References
28
Case No. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Deceased) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. 2025-60-0029
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

Hubbard, Talin v. Discount Tire, LLC

Mr. Talin Hubbard, a tire technician, sustained a chest injury on February 28, 2023, while working for Discount Tire, LLC. A compensation hearing was held on November 12, 2025, to resolve disputes regarding his permanent disability benefits. The Court adopted Dr. Karen Oldham's 1% whole person impairment rating for chronic pain syndrome, finding Discount Tire did not provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness given to the Medical Impairment Rating Registry physician's opinion. Furthermore, Mr. Hubbard was deemed entitled to increased benefits, receiving an award of $2,521.00, due to not returning to work for any employer. The Court also ordered Discount Tire to provide open medical benefits for both costochondritis and chronic pain syndrome, recognizing their work-related causation.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Disability BenefitsImpairment RatingChronic Pain SyndromeCostochondritisMedical Impairment Rating RegistryPreponderance of EvidenceClear and Convincing EvidenceReturn to WorkMedical Benefits
References
3
Case No. 2019-03-1563A
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2020

Rosasco, Brett v. West Knoxville Painters, LLC

Brett Rosasco, a painter for West Knoxville Painters (WKP), was struck by a falling tree after exiting a portable restroom. He sought medical and temporary disability benefits for his resulting injuries, which included fractures in his spine requiring fusion surgery. WKP denied benefits, arguing the incident was an 'act of God' and did not arise out of or occur in the course and scope of his employment. The Court held an Expedited Hearing and found that Mr. Rosasco failed to demonstrate that his injury arose out of his employment, as his work did not place him at an increased risk peculiar to his employment compared to the general public. Therefore, his request for benefits was denied at this time.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingAct of God DefenseArising Out of EmploymentCourse and Scope of EmploymentFalling Tree InjuryDisability Benefits DenialTennessee LawCausal ConnectionIncreased Risk
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 11,201 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