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. ADJ2308109 (OAK 0275439) ADJ01058712 (OAK 0275438)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

LINDA BURT-FOSS vs. CHILDREN'S FAIRYLAND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a zoo keeper injured in 1999. The applicant sustained a left foot and ankle injury that led to a Charcot foot condition, resulting in total permanent disability. The defendant argued for apportionment of disability, citing a medical opinion suggesting pre-existing conditions contributed to the Charcot foot. However, the Board affirmed the applicant's total permanent disability, finding the industrial injury was a contributing cause and therefore not subject to apportionment. The Board also found that the defendant waived issues regarding the overlap of disabilities from prior knee injuries by failing to raise them in their petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorCharcot footIndustrial InjuryInciting EventCompensable Consequence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jweid v. Vicks Lithograph & Printing

Claimant injured his back at work in February 1999, leading to multiple diagnoses and back surgeries. Following surgeries, he developed a consequential left foot drop injury. A workers' compensation claim was established and later amended to include the foot drop. Medical evidence supported a 40% loss of use of the left foot and a permanent partial disability of his back, with the claimant having reached maximum medical improvement. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge made a schedule loss award for the 40% loss of use of the left foot, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing against a schedule loss award. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, as a schedule loss of use award is appropriate when there is no continuing need for medical treatment and the condition is stable.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseBack InjuryFoot DropMedical ImprovementPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
5
Case No. ADJ8411201
Regular
Feb 04, 2014

EMMETT MARSHALL vs. BREWER CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury to the applicant's left foot and back, with temporary disability and future medical treatment. While affirming the injury to the left foot, the WCAB rescinded the finding of back injury. The temporary disability rate was also amended to reflect the statutory maximum of $1,074.64 per week, from the previously awarded $1,126.06. The decision otherwise affirmed the original findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPile DriverIndustrial InjuryLeft FootTemporary DisabilityMaximum Wage EarnerMedical TreatmentTallahassee Orthopedic ClinicWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1983

Claim of McNeil v. Geary

The claimant, a groom, injured her left knee in 1979 and was initially found temporarily totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board later reclassified her injury as a 15% permanent partial disability of the left leg, dating from the time of injury, and increased her benefits based on wage expectancy due to her being under 25. The employer appealed, arguing that wage expectancy benefits should not apply to the period of temporary total disability and that the record didn't substantiate a permanent partial disability ab initio. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that reclassification is a factual determination within the Board's sole province and was based on substantial evidence, and that the Board has continuing jurisdictional power to modify findings.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage ExpectancyWorkers' Compensation LawInjury ReclassificationBoard JurisdictionSubstantial EvidenceLeft Knee InjuryGroomRiding AcademyTemporary Total Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1996

Claim of Page v. Insulpane, Inc.

In May 1986, the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his left foot and ankle and received workers' compensation benefits. He later settled a third-party action for $15,000, with the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier, the State Insurance Fund, waiving its nearly $25,000 lien and its right to offset future compensation payments. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded the claimant a schedule award of $7,687.50 for a 25% loss of use of his left foot. The carrier contended no further payments were due, claiming an overpayment. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that no overpayment occurred, excluding certain disability payments made prior to the settlement from the calculation. The carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, holding that the carrier's waiver of its rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 did not preclude its reliance on Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4-a) to take a credit against the schedule award for previously paid disability benefits, as doing so would result in an unjustifiable double recovery for the claimant. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSchedule AwardThird-Party ActionSettlementLien WaiverOffsetDouble RecoveryRecoupmentDisability BenefitsJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Greco-Meyer v. Nassau County Police Department

Claimant, a police officer, sustained work-related injuries in 2006, leading to a workers' compensation claim for her left foot, left knee, and back. She continued in a restricted duty role until her regular service retirement in February 2012. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found her retirement involuntary and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, ruling that her retirement was voluntary and unrelated to her causally-related disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing an absence of persuasive evidence that her disability caused or contributed to her retirement, noting that medical opinions were equivocal and the claimant did not state her disability as the reason for retiring.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPermanent Partial DisabilityRetirement BenefitsCausally-Related DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePolice OfficerMedical ExaminationOrthopedist Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ8403518, ADJ8928431
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

Marcia Ortiz vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, INTERCARE

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings for a right elbow injury and its 24% permanent disability award. However, for a left foot/ankle injury, the Board rescinded the finding of industrial sleep disorder due to lack of substantial medical evidence. The Board also amended the permanent disability rating for the left ankle injury, ultimately awarding 12% permanent disability based on the primary treating physician's opinion. This decision corrected Dr. Chen's flawed application of impairment rating guidelines and excluded the sleep disorder from compensable injury.

PQMEDr. Chensleep impairmentindustrial injurypermanent disabilityADJ8403518ADJ8928431WCJDr. MartinovskyAMA Guides
References
7
Case No. ADJ13011053
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

NORBERTO GARCIA vs. DOMINATION COLLABORATION, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Norberto Garcia, a cook, sustained multiple industrial injuries including to his psyche, spine, shoulders, left ankle, lower extremities/gait, kidneys, and in the form of hypertension, anemia, diabetes, and left foot amputation. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability, finding that the impairments should be added due to their synergistic effects. Defendants petitioned for reconsideration, arguing errors in combining impairments and apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's findings that Dr. Lonky's medical opinions supported the additive approach for disability calculation and that even with minor adjustments, the applicant's permanent disability still exceeded 100%.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentHypertensive Cardiovascular DiseaseRenal DiseaseDiabetes MellitusLeft Foot AmputationGait DerangementVocational Evaluation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dinger v. K-Mart Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on November 14, 1996. The claimant sustained a left ankle injury in April 1994, which required reconstructive surgery and resulted in a 20% schedule loss of use of his left foot. The Board awarded benefits, delineating periods of temporary total disability and permanent partial disability with a future wage expectancy rate. The claimant contended that the entire schedule loss-of-use award should be calculated at the future wage expectancy rate from the date of injury, arguing that the Board's calculation reclassified all prior periods as permanent partial disability. The court, however, found no such reclassification and no statutory mandate supporting the claimant's argument. Citing substantial medical evidence, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its classification of the claimant's medical condition and benefit calculation.

workers' compensation benefitsschedule loss-of-usewage expectancytemporary total disabilitypermanent partial disabilityappellate reviewBoard decision affirmedmedical condition classificationsubstantial evidenceleft ankle injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,693 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