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
Nov 24, 1982

Claim of Burroughs v. Goshen Public School

Claimant, an industrial arts teacher, sustained a compensable injury to his left eye on June 22, 1976, resulting in a traumatic cataract and industrial blindness. A 100% schedule award for loss of use of the left eye was initially granted but later rescinded by the Workers' Compensation Board after the carrier appealed, arguing the award was premature as vision might improve with surgery. The case was restored to the Trial Calendar, and an administrative law judge reinstated the award after hearing testimony. The Board unanimously affirmed, finding the claimant's refusal to undergo eye surgery reasonable due to potential problems. The employer and carrier appealed this affirmance, contending the refusal was unreasonable as a matter of law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board's determination on the reasonableness of refusal to undergo surgery is a factual finding supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation BoardIndustrial InjuryLeft Eye InjuryTraumatic CataractIndustrial BlindnessSchedule AwardSurgery RefusalReasonableness of RefusalSubstantial EvidenceFactual Finding
References
1
Case No. ADJ11001608
Regular
Nov 30, 2018

MICHAEL CARMONA vs. CORNERSTONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., ZURICH LOS ANGELES

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for an eye injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the administrative law judge's finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the applicant's right eye, arguing this issue was not properly before the court. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant had already accepted liability for the right eye injury. The Board also affirmed the judge's discretion to defer the issue of injury to the left eye. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing the defendant was denied due process by the judge amending the claim to include the right eye without notice or opportunity to be heard.

WCABFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COERight EyeLeft EyePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorQMEMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference Statement
References
0
Case No. ADJ10448534
Regular
Apr 25, 2023

EMAD REZKALLA vs. CATHEDRAL CITY AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING INC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here is a summary of the case for a lawyer: The applicant sought to set aside a prior Stipulation with Request for Award based on alleged mutual mistake regarding the inclusion of a right eye injury. The original award, entered in 2017, specifically listed injuries to the left knee, left elbow, and lower back, and the applicant had not previously provided medical evidence linking the right eye issue to his 2014 work injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's findings that no mutual mistake was demonstrated and that the board lacked jurisdiction to reopen the award due to the untimeliness of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardPetition to Set AsideMutual MistakeLabor Code § 4909Labor Code § 5903Labor Code § 5804Injury to BackInjury to Arm
References
1
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1975

the Claim of Forest Westfall v. Linesville Construction Co.

The claimant, a 44-year-old pipe line construction worker, sustained a left eye injury in 1971, leading to enucleation. Twenty years prior, he had lost four fingers of his left hand due to an injury in Ohio. The Workmen's Compensation Board found a 95% loss of use of the left hand, concluding he was not totally and permanently disabled under section 15 (subd 8, par [c]) of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as he retained full thumb motion. Conflicting medical testimonies regarding the extent of his hand disability were presented. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, citing that the board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that determining conflicting medical testimony is within the board's purview.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityHand InjuryEye InjuryMedical TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLoss of UsePrior InjuryDisability Percentage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1992

Cappiello v. Telehouse International Corp. of America

Plaintiff Carlo Cappiello, a carpenter, sustained permanent vision loss in his left eye when a masonry nail ricocheted while he was building a plywood form at a construction site. He sued the site owner, Telehouse, and general contractor, Kajima, for negligence and Labor Law violations, specifically concerning the failure to provide safety goggles. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court reversed this decision in part, reinstating claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and specifically citing regulations 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and 12 NYCRR 19.4 (a) regarding eye protection. The court rejected a narrow interpretation of safety requirements, found a triable issue of fact regarding the foreseeability of the eye hazard, and also reinstated the derivative claim for loss of consortium.

Construction AccidentEye InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241(6)ForeseeabilityDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyRicocheting NailSafe Place to Work
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. ADJ1737177 (SAC 0359710)
Regular
Aug 11, 2014

Melinda Peterson vs. ALTIM HARMONY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that denied an industrial injury to the applicant's left eye, despite admitting a cervical spine and psyche injury. The applicant contends that her vision loss is a result of her cervical surgery, as supported by an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The Board found the medical record inadequately developed regarding the cause and industrial causation of the eye injury. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for further medical evaluations to establish a causal connection to the admitted injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMelinda PetersonAltim HarmonyAthens Administrators Insurance CompanyADJ1737177SAC 0359710Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Malerba v. Ameron Global, Inc.

Claimant, an aviation overhaul mechanic, sustained injuries in September 2008 due to a fire extinguisher explosion, leading to head, face, left arm, and right wrist injuries, and consequential depression. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge expanded the claim to include a left eye injury, traumatic brain injury, and encephalomalacia, ultimately finding a permanent total disability based on medical evidence. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and its carrier appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing deference to the Board's resolution of conflicting medical evidence, specifically acknowledging the treating neurologist's opinion of permanent total disability and the independent examiner's finding that the claimant could not perform mentally demanding work.

permanent total disabilityworkers' compensation appealtraumatic brain injuryencephalomalaciacognitive impairmentmedical evidenceconflicting medical opinionsappellate reviewaviation overhaul mechanic injurydepression
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Boyce v. Michelangelo General Contractors

The case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions related to a claimant’s injury. The employer challenged findings that the claimant suffered from causally related sympathetic glaucoma of the right eye due to an October 20, 1984 left eye injury, that the claimant was entitled to continuing disability benefits, and that the claimant was totally disabled. The Board’s conclusions were supported by the claimant’s physician’s testimony, despite conflicting medical evidence. Evidence of the claimant’s unstable condition and ongoing treatment justified the continuing disability award. Furthermore, the varying corrected vision and uncorrected vision, along with testimony of total disability, provided substantial evidence for the total disability finding, without requiring total blindness. The decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board were affirmed.

GlaucomaEye Injury CompensationDisability ClaimMedical CausationConflicting Medical TestimonyBoard FindingsAffirmation of DecisionAppellate Court ReviewPanel DecisionConcurrence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,068 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