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

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Graham

The appellant, Maryland Casualty Company, challenged the award of lump-sum compensation to the appellee, A. Graham, arguing that the issue was improperly presented and evidence was insufficient. A. Graham, suffering total permanent incapacity, sought a lump sum due to debts for basic necessities and medical treatment, claiming 'manifest hardship and injustice.' The court found that while Graham faced pecuniary embarrassment, the evidence did not meet the statutory criteria for a lump sum, which requires more than just present financial difficulty. The court affirmed the jury's finding of total permanent incapacity. However, it reformed the district court's judgment, ruling that A. Graham would receive weekly payments of $4.80, and his attorney, W. Y. Brown, $2.40 weekly, for a period of 401 weeks, rather than a lump sum.

Workers' CompensationLump Sum PaymentWeekly CompensationManifest HardshipTotal Permanent IncapacityAppellate ReviewJudgment ReformationAttorney FeesStatutory InterpretationEvidence Sufficiency
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wooley v. Gould, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Chancellor's denial of an appellant's motion to set aside a lump-sum workers' compensation settlement. The appellant filed the motion exactly one year after the settlement's approval, alleging fraud or mistake regarding his disability. The Court found the motion untimely, stating that while within the one-year maximum, the appellant failed to act within a "reasonable time." Additionally, the appellant did not offer to return the benefits received, a long-standing requirement for rescinding workers' compensation settlements in the state. The Court rejected claims of insufficient advice regarding employment prospects or the disability rating, emphasizing the finality of lump-sum settlements.

Workers' Compensation SettlementRule 60.02 MotionTimeliness of MotionTender of BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryLaminectomyMedical ReportChancery CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co.

This Per Curiam decision addresses appeals concerning whether employers and their carriers are entitled to credit for lump-sum settlements in reopened workers' compensation cases. The cases of Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co. and Yurivich v. Sans Souci Nursing Home both involve claimants who received lump-sum awards for partial disabilities but later experienced worsening conditions, leading to reopened cases and increased awards. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied credit to the carriers for the original lump-sum settlements, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court held that lump-sum settlements under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(5-b) cannot be indefinitely extended by excluding weeks where the claimant earned pre-injury wages. It affirmed that carriers assume the risk of reopened cases due to changed conditions, with no statutory or decisional basis for adjusting for claimant earnings during the period the lump-sum award covered.

Lump-sum settlementWorkmen's Compensation Law § 15(5-b)Credit for settlementReopened caseIncreased disabilityPost-disability earningsPre-disability earningsNonschedule adjustmentCaisson diseaseHerniated disc
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fowler v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.

This worker's compensation case examines whether the trial court correctly commuted an employee's award for 85% permanent partial disability to a lump sum. The trial court justified its decision by citing the employee's financial responsibility and the favorable interest rate differential for a lump sum. However, the Supreme Court reversed this aspect of the ruling, emphasizing that judicial discretion for commutation is not absolute and requires substantial evidence demonstrating the employee's specific need, beyond mere financial acumen. The court reinforced the principle that worker's compensation laws are remedial and should be equitably construed for the employee's benefit, but also cautioned against perfunctory lump sum awards without careful inquiry into potential adverse consequences for both parties.

Worker's CompensationLump Sum CommutationPermanent Partial DisabilityJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationRemedial StatuteEmployee BenefitsAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. 2020-05-0875
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Summers, Christine v. RTR Transportation Services

The employee’s surviving spouse challenged the trial court’s decision denying his request for a lump sum payment of death benefits and attorneys’ fees. The surviving spouse additionally challenged the trial court’s denial of his counsels’ request for attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision denying the surviving spouse’s request to commute the death benefits to a single lump sum and denying the award of attorney’s fees in a single lump sum. The Board also affirmed the trial court’s denial of an award of attorneys’ fees on the burial expenses paid by the employer, concluding they were not an issue at trial. Finally, the Board certified the trial court’s order as final.

Death BenefitsLump Sum PaymentAttorneys' FeesBurial ExpensesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSurviving SpouseStatutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court DecisionCommutation of Benefits
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsey v. Strohs Companies

Edmond L. Lindsey sustained a back injury while employed by Strohs Companies, Inc., leading to a worker's compensation claim. The trial court awarded 100% permanent total disability, but denied certain past medical expenses and imposed restrictions on future medical care, also commuting part of the award and attorney's fees to lump sums. On appeal, the court reversed the denial of chiropractic expenses and the stringent limitations on future medical care from approved physicians. The appellate court also modified the lump sum commutation of the award from $20,000 to $10,000 and reduced the lump sum attorney's fees. It affirmed the trial court's decision to deduct temporary total benefits from the statutory maximum for permanent total disability and upheld the denial of payment for out-of-state medical treatments obtained without prior employer approval.

Worker's CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityMedical ExpensesChiropractic CareLump Sum CommutationAttorney's FeesBack InjuryHerniated DiscEmployer LiabilityPhysician Choice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America

This workers’ compensation death case addresses two main issues: whether death benefits payable to a dependent under T.C.A. § 50-6-210 are limited to 400 weeks, and whether such benefits can be paid in a lump sum. The employee, Goldie Jones, was killed in the course of her employment in 1991. Her husband, Darrell Jones, filed for death benefits. The trial court limited the benefits to 400 weeks and refused a lump sum. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the 400-week limitation for permanent disability does not apply to death benefits, which should continue until the maximum total benefit is reached or dependency ceases. However, the Court affirmed the denial of a lump sum, finding the plaintiff failed to prove it was in his best interest or that he could wisely manage the funds. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine reasonable attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsDependent SupportLump Sum DenialStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawT.C.A. 50-6-210400-week LimitRemandAttorney's FeesSurviving Spouse
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a petition to modify a worker’s compensation lump sum settlement agreement. The appellant sustained a back injury in 1978, settling in 1980 for a 20% permanent partial disability based on an initial diagnosis of lumbosacral strain. Years later, a ruptured disc was diagnosed, prompting the appellant to file a petition in 1982 to modify the settlement, alleging mutual mistake of fact. The appellee moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was time-barred under T.R.C.P. 60.02, as it was filed more than one year after the final judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that claims based on mistake under T.R.C.P. 60.02(1) must be brought within one year, and subsection (5) cannot be used to circumvent this time limit.

Worker's CompensationLump Sum SettlementPetition to ModifyMutual Mistake of FactTimelinessT.R.C.P. 60.02Permanent Partial DisabilityRuptured DiscBack InjuryAffirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cascarano v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a former sanitation worker, was terminated on June 15, 2012. He applied for disability retirement benefits on May 22, 2013, but his application was denied as untimely by the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System. Following a hearing and subsequent review, the respondent sustained the initial denial, prompting the petitioner to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, finding substantial evidence that the application was untimely, as it was filed beyond the statutory three-month period from the last date the member was paid on the payroll for services rendered. A lump-sum back payment received as a result of an arbitration settlement was not considered 'on the payroll' for purposes of extending the application deadline.

Disability Retirement BenefitsApplication TimelinessStatutory Filing DeadlineRetirement and Social Security LawPayroll DefinitionLump-Sum PaymentCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceNew York State Employees Retirement System
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,369 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