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. 2-06-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

William Lowe, M.D. v. Mary Hernandez

Mary Hernandez, an employee of Calico Corners, sustained a work-related wrist injury and was treated by Dr. William Lowe. Dr. Lowe completed Texas Workers’ Compensation Work Status Reports (WSRs) throughout her recovery. Following a Functional Capacity Examination (FCE), Dr. Lowe mistakenly reported a permanent five-pound lifting restriction for Hernandez instead of fifty pounds, despite the FCE showing she could lift up to fifty pounds for some tasks. Calico Corners terminated Hernandez's employment based on this erroneous permanent restriction, as her job required lifting up to fifty pounds. Hernandez sued Dr. Lowe for negligence, claiming his misreporting and failure to correct the error caused her termination. A jury found Dr. Lowe 100% negligent, awarding Hernandez $179,589 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of Dr. Lowe's negligence and rejecting his arguments regarding expert testimony, contributory negligence, and charge errors.

References
22
Case No. ADJ10192587
Regular
Dec 27, 2017

TIMOTHY WILCOX vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Timothy Wilcox, sought benefits for an abdominal injury sustained while lifting. The defendant contested the 50-pound lifting restriction recommended by the applicant's Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), Dr. Fearer. The Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's decision, finding Dr. Fearer's medical opinion to be substantial evidence, even though it changed significantly. The Board adopted Dr. Fearer's reasoning that the 50-pound restriction, supported by applicant's credible testimony and affecting his ability to perform his firefighter duties, justified an increased permanent disability rating.

workers' compensationPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerPQMEwhole person impairmentWPIlifting restrictioninternal herniasmall bowel resectionAlmaraz/Guzman
References
5
Case No. E2007-02602-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2010

Gerry G. Kinsler v. Berkline, LLC

The case involves an employee, Gerry G. Kinsler, who filed a retaliatory discharge action against his employer, Berkline, LLC. Kinsler was discharged three days after he rejected a workers’ compensation settlement offer, following a workplace injury that resulted in a permanent lifting restriction. Berkline claimed Kinsler was discharged due to his inability to perform his job duties with the lifting restriction. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Berkline, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, citing genuine issues of material fact. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that there were sufficient factual disputes to preclude summary judgment, particularly regarding the employer's true motivation for the discharge.

retaliatory dischargeworkers' compensationsummary judgmentemployment-at-willlifting restrictionjob dutiesmaterial factcausationsubstantial factorsettlement offer
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 1987

Claim of Muzio v. City of Albany

In 1985, a laborer for the City of Albany sustained severe chest and leg injuries in a motor vehicle accident, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The claim was contested by the employer, who argued the claimant refused available light work and voluntarily left the job market. Medical testimonies from Dr. John Fortune and Dr. Dominic Belmonte established that the claimant was restricted to light duties, specifically prohibiting heavy lifting. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claimant's benefits, determining he had a moderate partial disability and that the work offered by the employer exceeded the medical restrictions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the employer's "light duty" tasks, including lifting 50-pound salt bags, were beyond medical limitations, and therefore, the claimant's refusal did not constitute a voluntary removal from the labor market.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentChest InjuriesLeg InjuriesModerate Partial DisabilityLight Duty RefusalVoluntary Removal from Labor MarketMedical RestrictionsEmployer AppealBoard Affirmation
References
2
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ronald Winkelman

Ronald Winkelman, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018. Following the 2018 injury, he received treatment and was assessed with a temporary partial disability, leading to lifting restrictions. After his employer could not accommodate these restrictions and terminated him, Winkelman secured per diem employment. The employer and its carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Winkelman made false statements regarding his work activities while receiving benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found no such violation, concluding that Winkelman's activities, including assisting his spouse, did not exceed his medical restrictions. The Board also determined that Winkelman was entitled to a reduced earnings award, finding he demonstrated attachment to the labor market. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationReduced Earnings AwardTemporary Partial DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision AffirmationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor Market Attachment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkendall v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The case involves William Kirkendall and other UPS employees suing UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after suffering back and other injuries due to a policy change requiring lifting heavier packages. Plaintiffs allege UPS refused accommodations. The court first addresses UPS's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the ADA claim should go to arbitration per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The court, citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., denies this motion, stating that individual statutory rights under the ADA are not waived by a CBA. The court then considers UPS's motion for summary judgment, arguing Kirkendall is not disabled under the ADA or cannot perform essential job functions. The court finds Kirkendall's degenerative disk disease and associated lifting and sitting limitations (e.g., inability to lift over 30 lbs, sit for more than 3 hours) do not constitute a 'substantial limitation' of a 'major life activity' as defined by the ADA, nor has he shown he is restricted from a class or broad range of jobs. Therefore, the court grants summary judgment to UPS, dismissing the complaint.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Statutory RightsContractual RightsSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activity
References
30
Case No. ADJ1834869
Regular
Feb 10, 2014

GREGORY CLEVELAND vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration regarding permanent disability (PD) awarded to the applicant. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, noting the defendant's failure to cross-examine the rater on the calculation of PD, which included instructions to consider overlap of heavy lifting. Furthermore, the Board admonished the defendant for attaching documents to its petition in violation of board rules. The applicant was awarded PD based on restrictions from heavy lifting for his cervical spine and right shoulder.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCITY OF LOS ANGELESPERMISSIBLY SELF-INSUREDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDRATING INSTRUCTIONSOVERLAPVERY HEAVY LIFTINGAPPORTIONMENTLABOR CODE §4664
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Peziol v. Vaw of America

The claimant, a millhand with a pre-existing severe arthritic spinal condition and a 20-pound lifting restriction since October 1992, sustained a back injury in June 1994 while lifting aluminum pipes, rendering him totally disabled. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's disability was causally related to a work-related accident and awarded benefits. The employer contested this decision, arguing for apportionment due to the pre-existing condition. However, the court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision, noting that the claimant was able to perform his duties despite the pre-existing condition until the work-related injury. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that apportionment did not apply.

Workers' CompensationSpinal InjuryPre-existing ConditionCausally Related DisabilityApportionmentMillhandLifting RestrictionTotal DisabilityAppellate DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griffin v. Memphis Community Television Foundation

William Griffin, a custodian for Memphis Community Television Foundation, sustained a neck and shoulder injury on March 6, 1981, while lifting a TV monitor. Dr. Henry T. Stratton diagnosed a mild degenerative cervical disc and neck strain, recommending conservative treatment and a weight-lifting restriction. Although Dr. Stratton initially found no permanent impairment, Mr. Griffin continued to experience pain and limitations, leading to his discharge. The trial court awarded Griffin 20% permanent partial disability. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding sufficient material evidence, including lay testimony and the enduring nature of the disability, to support the finding of permanent partial disability despite ambiguous medical testimony regarding permanence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical TestimonyLay TestimonyAggravated Pre-existing ConditionWeight Lifting RestrictionCervical Disc DegenerationNeck StrainAppellate ReviewMaterial Evidence Standard
References
5
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of Winkelman v. Sumitomo Rubber USA

Claimant Ronald Winkelman sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018 while working for Sumitomo Rubber USA. After the second injury, he sought treatment and was found to have a temporary disability, leading to a note with lifting restrictions. When the employer couldn't accommodate, he was told not to return. He subsequently worked per diem jobs and filed for awards. The carrier suspended payments and alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, arguing claimant made false statements about his activities and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding that no violation occurred and that claimant was entitled to reduced earnings, concluding that observed activities were not proven to exceed restrictions and sporadic assistance to his spouse was not an intentional misrepresentation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityReduced EarningsFalse StatementMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationSurveillance VideoLabor Market AttachmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,207 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