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

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. 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

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fultz v. Union Carbide Corp.

Carl Fultz, an employee of Union Carbide Corporation, sustained a back injury in 1962, leading to a workers' compensation lump sum settlement of $10,200 for 75% permanent partial disability. Union Carbide sought to deduct this settlement amount from Fultz's pension benefits, citing a provision in their Pension Plan. Fultz contested this deduction, arguing that the lump sum was not equivalent to periodic payments and that his disability constituted a "loss of a bodily member" under the plan's exceptions. The Circuit Court of Knox County initially ruled in favor of Union Carbide, a decision which Fultz appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the lump sum payment was indeed in lieu of periodic payments and that a permanent partial disability to the body as a whole does not fall under the "loss of a bodily member" exception as intended by the parties in the pension contract.

Workers' CompensationPension BenefitsDeclaratory JudgmentLump Sum SettlementPermanent Partial DisabilityContract InterpretationStatutory InterpretationDeductibilityBodily Member LossKnox County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Inspectronic Corp. v. Gottlieb Skanska, Inc.

Inspectronic, a subcontractor, sued Gottlieb Skanska, Inc., the general contractor, for breach of contract after Gottlieb terminated their agreement. The dispute arose from alleged delays and Inspectronic's request to change payment terms from a lump-sum to a "time and materials" basis. Gottlieb issued a notice of default and subsequently terminated the subcontract, claiming Inspectronic was non-responsive and refused to continue work at the agreed lump-sum price. The court found that Gottlieb wrongfully terminated the subcontract, ruling that Inspectronic's actions did not constitute a material breach or anticipatory repudiation. The court awarded Inspectronic damages totaling $304,852.13 for lost profits on both base contract items and anticipated change order work, plus retainage.

Breach of ContractWrongful TerminationSubcontractor DisputeConstruction LawDamages CalculationLost ProfitsTime and Materials ContractLump Sum ContractContract InterpretationPerformance Guarantees
References
7
Case No. 01-24-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

Venable's Construction, Inc v. Aspen Midstream, LLC

Venable’s Construction, Inc. (Venable’s) sued Aspen Midstream, LLC (Aspen) over a construction contract for a 56-mile pipeline. Venable’s claimed an additional $1.77 million for “Extra Work” beyond the $39 million lump sum price, arguing additional footages and bores were required due to route changes. Aspen denied owing extra compensation and counterclaimed for a declaration that Venable’s had a contractual duty to defend an Aspen affiliate in a separate lawsuit by Waller County landowners. The trial court sided with Aspen on both the pricing dispute and the duty to defend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on the lump sum price, concluding Venable's performed "Work" not "Extra Work" under the contract. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's declaration regarding the duty to defend, finding no live dispute because Aspen had opted to provide its own defense and reserved indemnification for later. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees.

Construction ContractLump Sum PriceExtra WorkQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelDuty to DefendIndemnification ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActPipeline ConstructionRisk Allocation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,986 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