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. 2015-05-0037
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

Womack, Angela v. Yorozu Automotive TN

Angela Womack sustained a right shoulder injury on July 25, 2014, while working for Yorozu Automotive TN. Initial medical evaluations by authorized physicians did not identify a labral tear, leading to the cessation of benefits. Ms. Womack later sought treatment from Dr. Jeffrey Peterson, who diagnosed and surgically repaired a labral tear (SLAP repair), attributing it to the work injury. The court found Ms. Womack's injury compensable, overriding the presumption of correctness for the authorized physicians, and awarded medical, temporary total disability, and permanent partial disability benefits. However, the claim for enhanced permanent disability benefits was denied because her decision not to return to work was personal, not directly related to her work injury.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryLabral TearSLAP RepairMedical CausationPresumption of CorrectnessTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsWork Injury
References
9
Case No. 2023-07-6858
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2024

Pond, Kayla v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.

Kayla Pond sustained a left-shoulder injury on October 25, 2021, while working for Darden Restaurants, Inc., leading to a labral tear and rotator cuff tear. Her treating physician, Dr. David Pearce, initially assessed a 7% impairment, later reduced to 6%, which he admitted was 'inflated' and did not strictly follow AMA Guides due to the inclusion of an incidental distal clavicle resection. Darden's records review physician, Dr. David Lochemes, countered with a 2% impairment, arguing that the AMA Guides explicitly prohibit rating incidental resections and that only work-related injuries should be considered. The Court, citing Hart v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, found that Darden rebutted the presumption of correctness of Dr. Pearce's opinion regarding the causal relationship of the AC arthritis and resection. Ultimately, the Court adopted Dr. Lochemes's 2% impairment rating, concluding that Dr. Pearce's assessment did not adhere to the AMA Guides, and awarded Ms. Pond $8,254.72 in permanent partial disability benefits.

Left Shoulder InjuryLabral TearRotator Cuff TearDistal Clavicle ResectionAMA GuidesImpairment Rating DisputeCausation of InjuryTreating Physician Presumption RebuttalPermanent Partial Disability BenefitsMedical Expert Testimony
References
2
Case No. 2017-05-1265
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2018

Patterson, Michael v. Huff & Puff Trucking

Michael Patterson, an employee, sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits for a work-related right shoulder injury sustained in a truck accident. The court considered conflicting medical opinions regarding a labral tear and ultimately found Mr. Patterson likely to prevail in proving causation. The court ordered Huff and Puff Trucking and Praetorian Ins. Co. to cover Mr. Patterson's reasonable and necessary medical expenses for his shoulder treatment by Dr. Jeffrey Peterson and temporary disability benefits from April 18, 2017, to February 16, 2018.

Expedited HearingRight Shoulder InjuryLabral TearTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsCausation DisputeMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeryMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployee Benefits
References
5
Case No. 2016-05-0900
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2017

Decker, Sherry v. MTEK, Inc.

Sherry Decker filed for an expedited hearing seeking medical benefits for shoulder surgery recommended by her authorized treating physician, Dr. Chad Price, following a work accident in January 2015. The central legal issue was whether her need for surgery primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The court considered conflicting medical opinions, with Dr. Price supporting causation and other physicians citing symptom resolution and chronic degenerative changes. Ultimately, the court found Ms. Decker unlikely to prove by a preponderance of the medical evidence that her labral tear was caused by the work accident. Consequently, her request for surgical treatment was denied.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsShoulder SurgeryLabrum TearRotator Cuff TearCausation DisputePreponderance of EvidenceAuthorized Treating PhysicianConflicting Medical OpinionsDegenerative Changes
References
1
Case No. 2025-10-5344
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2026

Pinkham, Timothy W. v. Davis Enterprises of Tennessee, LLC

Mr. Pinkham requested benefits which Davis Enterprises denied due to a lack of medical causation. Mr. Pinkham alleged a neck and shoulder injury while climbing into his truck on August 9, 2025. However, the panel-selected orthopedist, Dr. Rickey Hutcheson, determined that Mr. Pinkham’s significant cervical spondylosis was not work-related and diagnosed a degenerative labral tear. Dr. Hutcheson opined that the claimed mechanism of injury was not 50% or more the cause of his need for treatment for his right shoulder. Based on Dr. Hutcheson's presumed correct causation opinion, which Mr. Pinkham failed to rebut, the Court denied the request for benefits for a second opinion or appointment of a neutral physician.

Workers' CompensationMedical CausationExpedited HearingDegenerative ConditionCervical SpondylosisLabral TearPresumption of CorrectnessNeutral PhysicianSecond OpinionRight Shoulder Injury
References
1
Case No. 2017-03-0504
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2017

Blakenship, Roger v. Wolverine-OWSFI, Inc.

Mr. Blankenship, a roofing foreman for Wolverine-OWSFI, Inc., sustained a neck and left shoulder injury on June 28, 2016, while moving an industrial blower. Wolverine accepted the claim and authorized treatment with Dr. Paul Brady, who later offered surgery as a treatment option for a probable labral tear, despite initial concerns about potential worsening. The surgery request was denied by Utilization Review (UR) physician Dr. Glen Smith but subsequently overturned and approved by Medical Director Dr. Robert B. Snyder. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Lisa A. Lowe, granted Mr. Blankenship's request for medical benefits, finding he is likely to prevail at trial due to the authorized treating physician's recommendation and the Medical Director's approval, outweighing the UR physician's opinion.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingShoulder InjuryLabral TearUtilization ReviewMedical DirectorTreating PhysicianCompensabilitySurgical Authorization
References
1
Case No. 2019-08-0191
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2021

Russell, Frederick v. Aluma Form, Inc.

Frederick Russell, an assembly technician for Aluma Form, Inc., suffered a left shoulder and neck injury in January 2018. The employer accepted a shoulder sprain but contested a labral tear and impingement. The Court reviewed conflicting medical testimony from Dr. Jones and Dr. Dalal regarding causation and impairment. The Court ruled that Mr. Russell successfully proved causation for his shoulder injury and that he was justified in seeking unauthorized treatment due to the employer's actions. Consequently, Aluma Form was ordered to pay permanent partial disability benefits of $11,879.49, temporary disability benefits of $9,308.86, and Mr. Russell's medical bills from Dr. Dalal and Memphis Surgery Center. Dr. Dalal was designated as the authorized treating physician for future medical benefits.

Shoulder InjuryLabral TearImpingement SyndromeMedical CausationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentOrthopedic SurgeryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRange of Motion Impairment
References
5
Case No. 533203
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Cotterell v. Trinity Health Corp.

Claimant, Meggan Cotterell, sustained a lower back injury in 2015 while working for Trinity Health Corporation. Later, a right hip injury was found to be causally-related to the original work injury. The employer and carrier argued the hip injury claim was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which mandates claims be filed within two years of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claim amendment, crediting the treating orthopedist's testimony that initial hip pain was confused with low back symptoms and the hip labral tear was diagnosed later. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that medical reports indicating hip pain filed within two years, coupled with the delayed diagnosis, provided substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the amendment was not time-barred.

Workers' CompensationHip InjuryLabral TearTimelinessWorkers' Compensation Law § 28CausationMedical EvidenceOrthopedist TestimonyAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
7
Case No. 533203
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Meggan Cotterell

Claimant Meggan Cotterell, a resident assistant, was injured at work on September 13, 2015, sustaining lower back injuries. In 2018, it was determined she also suffered a causally-related right hip labral tear. The employer and carrier objected to amending her claim to include the hip injury, arguing it was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A WCLJ credited the testimony of claimant's treating orthopedist, Matthew Stein, who diagnosed the hip injury in June 2017, and amended the claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, also affirmed, finding that numerous medical reports filed within two years of the accident, establishing bilateral hip pain, were sufficient to provide the Board with facts from which a claim for compensation could be reasonably inferred, thus preventing the claim from being time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' CompensationHip InjuryLabral TearTimeliness of ClaimAmendment of ClaimStatute of LimitationsMedical EvidenceOrthopedist TestimonyCausal RelationshipPreexisting Condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anderson v. New York City Department of Design & Construction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from April 25, 2013, which denied his application to include a partial right rotator cuff tear under his existing 2002 work-related injury claim. The Board found that claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2002 automobile accident and the 2009 rotator cuff tear, despite the opinion of his orthopedist. The orthopedist acknowledged that age-related degeneration could cause such tears independently of trauma. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the orthopedist's testimony did not convincingly prove a causal relationship.

Rotator cuff tearCausal relationshipWorkers' CompensationMedical evidenceDisabilityWork-related injuryAutomobile accidentShoulder painOrthopedist opinionSubstantial evidence
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 125 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