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. ADJ2110739 (MON 0313927)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Rosalind Eskridge (Vallery) vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case returns to the trial level for a comprehensive re-analysis of applicant's permanent disability rating, specifically focusing on the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor. The Board rescinded the prior award because the judge's decision did not fully adhere to the *Ogilvie* en banc decisions, which mandate a specific four-step analysis for rebutting the DFEC. The judge must now conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, potentially developing the record further, to determine if the applicant's demonstrated earning loss and other relevant factors, including *Montana* factors, justify an individualized DFEC adjustment over the scheduled rating. The applicant bears the burden of proving that her evidence substantially overcomes the prima facie validity of the scheduled DFEC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRSOgilvie analysisAgreed Medical ExaminerDisability Evaluation UnitDEUAgreed Medical Examiner
References
6
Case No. ADJ784749 (AHM 0115079)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

Carlos Bautista vs. Prime Factors, Inc., Factory Filament, Inc., Isaac Powell, Uninsured Employers Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Carlos Bautista for an industrial injury to his spine sustained in November 2003. The applicant was hired in California by Prime Factors Inc., an illegally uninsured employer, and then flown to Mississippi for a job. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is denying Isaac Powell's petition for reconsideration of prior findings. These findings established California's jurisdiction, the employer's uninsured status, and the applicant's industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrime FactorsInc.Isaac PowellUninsured Employers FundIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Case No. ADJ6721939
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

BERTHA NORIEGA GARCIA vs. PATRICK L. HINRICHSEN, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

This case is remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not fully analyze the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor under the *Ogilvie* decisions. The ALJ improperly relied solely on applicant's testimony for lost earnings without a proper *Ogilvie* analysis, including the duration of post-injury earnings and consideration of other factors affecting earning capacity. The ALJ must conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, weigh the evidence, and explain how the adjusted DFEC factor reflects the applicant's actual earning capacity compared to the scheduled rating. The Board also clarified that temporary disability indemnity is not to be treated as post-injury earnings.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFECOgilvie analysisRebuttalScheduled Permanent Disability RatingPost-injury earningsEarnings lossTemporary disability indemnityPermanent and stationary dateTriers-of-fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. DeYoung

This case concerns an appeal by a defendant from a County Court's denial of his application for judicial diversion under CPL article 216. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree. The County Court initially denied diversion, finding that the defendant's alcohol and substance abuse were not contributing factors to his criminal behavior, despite an evaluation indicating cannabis, alcohol, and opiate dependence. The Appellate Court reversed the County Court's decision, asserting that the record did not support the finding that the defendant's substance abuse was not a contributing factor. The court emphasized that the statute only requires a contributing factor, not an exclusive or primary cause, and noted that the defendant used proceeds partly for drugs. The Appellate Court granted the defendant's application for judicial diversion and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Judicial DiversionDrug Law Reform Act of 2009Substance Abuse TreatmentCriminal BehaviorAlcohol DependenceCannabis DependenceFelony OffenseAppellate ReviewPlea of GuiltyContributing Factor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc.

Current and former Metro technicians sued Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc., its executives, and Time Warner Cable of New York City for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Time Warner moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not a joint employer of the technicians. The Court applied the 'economic reality' test, assessing factors of formal and functional control. Finding that Time Warner lacked significant control over hiring, firing, schedules, payment, or records, and that most functional control factors also weighed against joint employment, the Court granted Time Warner's motion for summary judgment. The sole factor supporting joint employment, that Metro technicians worked exclusively for Time Warner, was deemed insufficient to establish an employer relationship.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmploymentEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentSubcontractingCable TechniciansEmployer-Employee RelationshipFormal ControlFunctional Control
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

Matter of Rosales v. Eugene J. Felice Landscaping

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its workers’ compensation carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a WCLJ ruling that the claimant, a landscaper injured in 2010, sustained a permanent partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity. The WCLJ had considered various vocational factors, including the claimant's age, limited English skills, and low education, to determine a 10% wage-earning capacity and a $300 weekly benefit rate. The employer argued that vocational factors should not be used to determine wage-earning capacity for computing the compensation rate in permanent partial disability cases. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing permanent from temporary disabilities and concluding that vocational factors are appropriately considered under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) when fixing wage-earning capacity in permanent partial disability cases without actual earnings, especially when the injury contributed to the loss.

permanent partial disabilitywage-earning capacityvocational factorsWorkers' Compensation Law § 15benefit durationcompensation ratephysical impairmentback surgerylimited English skillseducational background
References
10
Case No. ADJ1177048
En Banc
Sep 03, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable, the burden of which rests with the disputing party. It affirms that a primary method of rebuttal is to challenge a component element, such as the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor, by providing an individualized factor consistent with statutory requirements.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttablePrima Facie EvidencePermanent Disability RatingLabor Code section 4660RAND dataIndividualized Adjustment FactorWhole Person Impairment
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 827 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