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

Cameron v. Kite Painting Co.

The Director of the Tennessee Division of Workers’ Compensation, Second Injury Fund, appealed a workers' compensation judgment from the Circuit Court of Maury County. The case involved a plaintiff who sustained a workplace injury while employed by Kite Painting Company, which aggravated pre-existing disabilities, leading to a finding of 100% total disability. The trial court apportioned 30% of the liability to the employer and 70% to the Second Injury Fund. An agreed settlement was later reached between the plaintiff, employer, and insurer for the employer's portion and future medical expenses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the 70% assessment against the Second Injury Fund and clarifying that the Fund was not entitled to notice of the employer-employee settlement as its potential liability was not involved in that specific agreement.

Second Injury FundPre-existing ConditionPermanent Total DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMedical BenefitsLump Sum SettlementEmployer ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionNotice Requirements

References

Case No. ADJ6719136

Regular

Apr 01, 2011

RICHARD KITE vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

This case concerns Richard Kite's claim for workers' compensation for a hip injury sustained while employed by East Bay Municipal Utility District. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered an order mandating the employer restore applicant's sick and vacation leave at a higher rate tied to his later earnings. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to justify using the increased earnings for calculating leave restoration, as per *Grossmont Hospital v. WCAB*. Therefore, the WCAB amended the order to restore leave at the rate of $668.93 per week, based on the applicant's earnings at the time of the initial injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityTD RateSick LeaveVacation LeaveEmployment Development DepartmentEDDWCJFindings of FactLabor Code

References

Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability

References

Case No. ADJ13119496

Regular

Sep 29, 2025

Ariel Prudente vs. RJP Framing, Inc., Alaska National Insurance Company

Applicant Ariel Prudente sought removal of a WCJ's order to replace psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME) Dr. Peter Turek. The WCJ's decision stemmed from applicant's attorney providing "summaries and excerpts from the Kite decisions" to Dr. Turek, which was deemed a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b). The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's order lacked sufficient rationale and evidence of prejudice to justify Dr. Turek's replacement. Consequently, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's June 18, 2025 Findings and Order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for less drastic measures than QME replacement.

PQMEPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Kite decisionsVigil v. County of KernSuon v. California DairiesMaxham v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitationex parte communicationsubstantial justiceAOE/COE

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Cameron v. Kite Painting Co.

RICHARD KITE vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityTD RateSick LeaveVacation LeaveEmployment Development DepartmentEDDWCJFindings of FactLabor Code

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Ariel Prudente vs. RJP Framing, Inc., Alaska National Insurance Company