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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses the calculation of permanent partial disability awards for employees over age 60 under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court of Tennessee was asked to determine if such awards should be calculated as a percentage of 400 weeks, with a cap at 260 weeks, or as a percentage of 260 weeks. The Court held that awards are properly calculated at 400 weeks, capped at 260 weeks, for employees over 60. Additionally, the Court considered the application of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-242, which allows awards exceeding the statutory 'multiplier' provision of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) if supported by clear and convincing evidence. The case was remanded to the trial court for specific documentation of the clear and convincing evidence supporting an award in excess of the multiplier provision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability Benefits CalculationAge 60+ EmployeesStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawVocational DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingMultiplier Provision ExceptionRemand for Findings
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
References
3
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2022

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns an appeal by Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare regarding the calculation of death benefits for Lawrence Williams, the surviving spouse of Linda Williams, a healthcare worker who died from COVID-19. The parties initially agreed on a settlement, but the trial court, presided over by Judge Deana C. Seymour, rejected it due to an inconsistent calculation of the 'maximum total benefit.' The trial court concluded that the maximum total benefit should be calculated by multiplying the state’s average weekly wage by 450 weeks, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(15)(D). The Appeals Board, led by Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner, affirmed the trial court’s decision, clarifying that while the weekly benefit rate is tied to the deceased employee's wages, the overall duration of payments is capped by an across-the-board limitation based on the state’s average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCOVID-19Maximum Total BenefitStatutory InterpretationState Average Weekly WageSurviving SpouseAppellate ReviewSettlement RejectionHealthcare Worker
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appellate decision addresses whether the Workers' Compensation Board correctly calculated the claimant's average weekly wage. The employer and carrier argued that due to the claimant's limited employment as an MVRSAB member, the compensation rate should be based on actual earnings, not the 200 multiple outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board determined that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) nor (2) was applicable, thus applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). It also found no evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited participation in the labor market, based on testimony of availability and continued business operation. The court affirmed the Board's calculation.

average weekly wageworkers' compensation lawcompensation rateemployment limitationlabor marketstatutory interpretationappellate reviewMVRSAB member
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This General Order addresses Defendant Texas EZPawn, L.P.'s motion for partial summary judgment concerning the calculation of damages in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases. Plaintiffs, former assistant store managers, allege they were improperly classified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation. EZPawn argued for the application of the fluctuating workweek method (29 C.F.R. § 778.114) for damage calculation, citing *Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Company*. Plaintiffs countered that EZPawn waived this argument, the method is inapplicable, and fact issues remain. The Court denies EZPawn's motion, concluding that the fluctuating workweek method is inappropriate for misclassification cases as it is inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the FLSA, particularly the time and one-half compensation requirement for overtime, and creates adverse incentives for employers. The Court also declines to follow the Fifth Circuit precedent in *Blackmon*, deeming its reasoning flawed.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationEmployee MisclassificationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentDamages CalculationFederal Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeStatutory InterpretationCircuit Precedent
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiffs initiated a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), asserting they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied proper overtime compensation. The defendants, S-3 Pump Service, Inc. and its owners Malcolm and Linda Sneed, raised several defenses, including the applicability of the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption and the use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method for overtime calculation. The court ruled that the MCA exemption did not apply, siding with the plaintiffs, and determined that Malcolm H. Sneed qualified as an employer under the FLSA due to his operational control. Conversely, the court found that the FWW half-time multiplier was the appropriate method for calculating overtime, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument against it, and concluded that Linda Sneed was not an employer under the FLSA. This resulted in a mixed outcome on the parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment.

FLSAMotor Carrier Act ExemptionFluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayEmployer StatusSummary JudgmentCollective ActionOil and Gas IndustryInterstate CommerceWage and Hour
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2000

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

A truck driver, referred to as 'claimant', was injured while crossing a street to get a meal before starting a new assignment. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the injury compensable, categorizing the claimant as an 'outside employee' entitled to expanded coverage. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing the accident occurred during a deviation from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the activity was reasonable and within the course of employment. The court also dismissed an appeal concerning the calculation of benefits due to abandonment by the claimant.

Traveling EmployeePortal-to-Portal CoverageCourse of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentCompensable InjuryAccidentTruck DriverMeal BreakOff-Duty InjuryBoard Resolution
References
7
Case No. 2015-07-0467
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2016

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an expedited hearing initiated by employee Robert Parrish, who sought additional temporary disability benefits, arguing that his weekly compensation rate was incorrectly calculated by his employer, Digit Dirt Worx. Mr. Parrish claimed he worked only twenty weeks, not the twenty-three weeks calculated by Digit Dirt Worx. The employer, Digit Dirt Worx, argued the request for an expedited hearing was untimely and that their compensation rate calculation was correct, utilizing a period of twenty-three weeks and five days, which resulted in a higher rate for Mr. Parrish than his own calculations. The Court addressed the timeliness issue, excusing the ten-day late filing due to Mr. Parrish's clear intent to prosecute the claim. However, on the merits, the Court denied Mr. Parrish's claim, finding insufficient evidence to support his argument for a different compensation rate and concluding that Digit's calculation was consistent with Tennessee law.

Expedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsWeekly Compensation RateWage CalculationTimeliness of FilingDispute Certification NoticeAverage Weekly WageFortuitous CircumstanceTruck Driver EmploymentFile Review Decision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,260 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