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
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B & S Welding LLC Work Related Injury Plan v. Juan Pedro Oliva-Barron and Avelina Oliva

The B & S Welding LLC Work Related Injury Plan appealed a trial court's judgment in favor of Juan Pedro Oliva-Barron, who was denied benefits after a work injury. The Plan had accused Oliva of fraud, while Oliva counterclaimed for ERISA benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Oliva was excused from exhausting administrative remedies due to the Plan's conduct, and that the Plan's termination of benefits was arbitrary and lacked substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the award of medical expenses due to insufficient evidence but upheld the award of indemnity benefits and attorney's fees.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsPlan AdministrationAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceFutility DoctrineAdministrative ExhaustionFraud ClaimsSurveillance EvidenceMedical Denials
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1988

Matthews v. County of Nassau

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which awarded the plaintiff $210,000 in damages for personal injuries. The appellate court reversed this judgment and dismissed the complaint. It was determined that the plaintiff, a volunteer at the Nassau County Fine Arts Museum, was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for her job-related injuries under Nassau County Administrative Code § 2105 (b). The court found that the plaintiff was performing services as a volunteer when she was injured and there was no deviation from employment. Therefore, the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, as the plaintiff failed to present prima facie proof that her injury was not job-related.

Workers' CompensationVolunteerPersonal InjuryNassau CountyAppellate ReversalJob-Related InjuryMotion to DismissPrima Facie ProofAdministrative CodeMuseum
References
1
Case No. 03S01-9703-CV-00033
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1997

James Walter Dellinger v. The Arnold Engineering Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Larry Brinton, Jr., Director of the Second Injury Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reviewed the case of James Walter Dellinger, who was found totally disabled after a 1994 work-related injury. The trial court had apportioned 40% of the award against The Arnold Engineering Company and 60% against the Second Injury Fund, granting benefits for 400 weeks. The employer challenged the work-related nature of the back injury and the apportionment, while Dellinger contended the award should extend until his 65th birthday. The Panel affirmed the trial court's findings on the work-related injury and apportionment. However, it modified the judgment, ruling that compensation for permanent total disability should be paid until the employee reaches 65, citing T.C.A. § 50-6-207(4), and as modified, affirmed the judgment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityApportionment of AwardSecond Injury FundWork-Related InjuryMedical ImpairmentVocational DisabilityHerniaBack InjuryPaget's Disease
References
3
Case No. 08-08-00348-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

in Re: Swift Transportation Company, Inc.

Swift Transportation Company, Inc. (Relator) seeks a writ of mandamus against Judge David C. Guaderrama to compel arbitration in a case involving Jose Valtierra, a former employee. Valtierra, an over-the-road truck driver, sued Swift for negligence after sustaining a job-related injury, despite Swift having an Injury Benefit Plan with a mandatory arbitration clause. The court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or the Texas General Arbitration Act (TAA) applies to Swift's Injury Benefit Plan, given Valtierra's status as a transportation worker. The court concluded that the Injury Benefit Plan is an employment contract under Section 1 of the FAA, rendering the FAA inapplicable. Furthermore, the TAA did not apply because Valtierra's personal injury claim lacked a signed arbitration agreement advised by counsel. Ultimately, the court held that Swift's arbitration agreement was void and unenforceable under Section 406.033(e) of the Texas Labor Code, thereby denying Swift's petition for mandamus relief.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActEmployment ContractTransportation Workers ExemptionTexas Labor CodeMandamus ReliefNegligence ClaimInjury Benefit PlanNon-subscriber Employer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2005

Claim of Haas v. Gross Electric

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from July 13, 2005, which denied his claim for benefits, finding no causally related injury. The claim stemmed from a December 17, 2002, work-related motor vehicle accident. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claim established based on medical expert opinions linking a back injury to the accident. However, this determination was rescinded after the carrier submitted newly discovered evidence—medical records from claimant’s primary care physician, Thomas Coppens—revealing prior back injuries and that the current problems began while wrapping presents on December 24, 2002. Subsequent medical opinions became ambivalent or changed, leading to the disallowance of the claim by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision later affirmed by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Motor Vehicle AccidentBack InjuryCausation DisputeMedical Expert OpinionPrior Medical HistoryNewly Discovered EvidenceSubstantial Evidence ReviewClaim DisallowanceAppellate AffirmationBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. 526688
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Bufearon v. City of Rochester Bur. of Empl. Relations

Claimant Kamren Bufearon sustained work-related injuries in a motor vehicle collision on March 4, 2016, for which his workers' compensation claim was established for injuries to his left shoulder, left hip, and lower back. Subsequently, he sought to amend his claim to include a causally-related cervical spine injury, which was initially approved by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant failed to sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between his cervical spine condition and the March 4, 2016 incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the medical testimony from two physicians contained conflicting findings and equivocal narratives regarding causation. The court concluded that the Board was entitled to reject the physicians' opinions as speculative, particularly since neither physician had reviewed the claimant's prior medical records for a pre-existing cervical spine fusion surgery.

Cervical spine injuryCausal relationshipMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardPre-existing conditionCredibility of physiciansBurden of proofMotor vehicle accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2005

Claim of Jones v. New York State Department of Correction

The claimant, a bus driver for the New York City Department of Correction, sustained work-related injuries to her right shoulder and back in September 1998. After surgery in 1999, she sought treatment in 2001 for left shoulder pain, alleging it was a consequential injury from favoring her right shoulder. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causally related consequential injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to make its own factual findings and resolve conflicting medical evidence. The Board found the self-insured employer’s medical consultant more credible than the claimant’s physician, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionCausal RelationshipConsequential InjuryCredibility of WitnessesConflicting Medical EvidenceShoulder InjuriesBus DriverNew York City Department of CorrectionAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. M2004-01683-WC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2005

Larry Hopper v. Oshkosh B'Gosh And State of Tennessee, Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, Second Injury Fund

Larry Hopper, employed by OshKosh B’Gosh, sustained a back injury in 1996 and settled the workers' compensation claim for 20% vocational disability in 1997. After losing his job, he sought to reopen the settlement, filing a motion for reconsideration against the Second Injury Fund only. The trial court granted this, increasing his vocational disability by 30% and assigning liability to the Second Injury Fund. On appeal, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the Second Injury Fund's liability is limited to subsequent compensable injuries, not the initial injury for which reconsideration was sought. Therefore, Mr. Hopper’s claim against the Second Injury Fund for a first injury reconsideration was deemed to lack standing and was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundVocational DisabilityReconsideration of SettlementStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionPre-existing InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Injury Fund St. Tx. v. Conrad

This case involves Adelina Conrad, who was born without a right hand or wrist and later sustained a work-related injury to her left arm, resulting in total and permanent disability. She sought lifetime workers' compensation benefits from The Second Injury Fund of Texas, which was established to encourage the employment of handicapped workers by limiting employer liability for second injuries. The Fund appealed a jury verdict in Conrad's favor, contending that a congenital defect cannot be considered a 'previous loss' under the statute because one cannot lose what one never had. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, interpreting 'loss or loss of use' to include congenital defects, thus allowing Conrad to receive benefits from the Fund. This decision aligns with the legislative intent to aid handicapped workers and provides a broader application of the Second Injury Fund provisions.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundCongenital DefectPermanent Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewOccupational InjuryEmployer LiabilityLegislative Intent
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 22,199 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