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. LAO 0848876
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

MARIA MURILLO vs. HI POINT/NORCO RANCH, REPUBLIC INSURANCE by CRAWFORD AND COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) determined that a diskectomy is not an amputation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C), limiting temporary disability to 104 weeks. The WCAB affirmed the finding that temporary disability should have been paid from October 6, 2006, to November 24, 2006, but reversed the decision to extend benefits beyond the statutory 104-week limit due to a delay in authorizing surgery. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability indemnity only for the specified period, with the last payment due November 24, 2006.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardMachine operatorIndustrial injuryBilateral shouldersBack injuryTemporary disability indemnityLabor Code section 4656Amputation
References
3
Case No. ADJ2154956 (LAO 0868696)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

AUGUSTINE BERNAL vs. MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION; CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury to the applicant's right shoulder. The Board amended the temporary disability period to December 5, 2005, to November 1, 2006, and November 1, 2006, to February 21, 2007. The Board affirmed the finding of $44\%$ permanent disability, stating the WCJ can base this on a range of evidence, not solely the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The decision also grants the defendant credit for applicant's earnings during the adjusted temporary disability period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMartin Brothers Constructionindustrial injuryright shouldertemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)substantial evidenceReport and RecommendationPetition for Reconsideration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2006

Whitmore v. Carrier Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in November 1999 and returned to light duty until August 2002, when a congestive heart condition forced him to stop working. He was found to have a permanent marked partial disability for his back as of October 14, 2002, and sought wage loss benefits. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that his reduced earnings were due to his heart condition, not the compensable back injury. The Board affirmed this decision on April 10, 2006. Claimant's subsequent appeal was dismissed as untimely because the notice of appeal was submitted late.

Reduced EarningsCausally Related DisabilityBack InjuryHeart ConditionUntimely AppealWage Loss BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barber v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, who sustained a work-related injury in 1994, was awarded benefits for a moderate partial disability. A Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed in March 2006, finding insufficient medical evidence for total disability, but allowed reopening for additional evidence. After a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge modified the award in July 2006 for certain periods, the claimant sought reconsideration of the Board's March 2006 decision to increase the disability rate for an earlier period, which the Board denied in January 2007. The current appeal challenged the denial of reconsideration. The court affirmed the denial, stating that the merits of the March 2006 decision were not reviewable due to the claimant's failure to appeal it directly, and found no abuse of discretion or arbitrary action by the Board in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityTotal DisabilityReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheahan v. Brady

Plaintiff Danielle Sheahan, a white woman, was terminated from her position at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in April 1992, after being hired in May 1991. The defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, claimed she was fired for submitting an altered college transcript. However, the plaintiff alleged racial and color discrimination, asserting that her mostly Black co-workers and supervisors conspired against her, fabricating the transcript alteration accusation. Sheahan pursued administrative remedies, first with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on October 16, 1992. Subsequently, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also dismissed her case on October 22, 1992, based on the erroneous belief that an MSPB appeal was still pending. Plaintiff then filed a civil suit in federal court on November 12, 1992. Critically, on November 9, 1992, the Treasury Department had filed a Request to Reopen the EEOC's October 22 decision. The court examined the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, specifically concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the finality of EEOC actions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1613.234, a timely request to reopen by either party renders an EEOC decision non-final for the purpose of initiating a civil action. Consequently, the defendant's request to reopen on November 9, 1992, made the EEOC's October 22 decision non-final before Sheahan filed her lawsuit on November 12, 1992. Therefore, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and suggested that either party could renew a request to reopen the EEOC decision, anticipating it would be granted given the EEOC's original erroneous finding.

Federal employment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActRacial discriminationColor discriminationWrongful terminationAdministrative exhaustionEEOC decision finalitySubject matter jurisdictionMotion to dismiss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. Interstate National Dealer

Claimant, previously classified as permanently partially disabled from a May 2000 work injury, was accused by the employer's carrier of violating Workers' Compensation Law §§ 114 and 114-a for returning to work without disclosure and providing false testimony/responses on a recertification questionnaire. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled claimant violated WCL § 114-a and disqualified indemnity payments after November 13, 2003, a decision affirmed by the Board on January 30, 2006. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration or full Board review was denied on August 1, 2006. On appeal from this denial, the court affirmed, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, as the claimant merely reargued previously considered issues without presenting new compelling evidence. The merits of the Board's original January 2006 decision were deemed not properly before the court due to the claimant's failure to appeal that earlier decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityFraudulent MisrepresentationFalse TestimonyIndemnity PaymentsRecertificationReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewAppellate DiscretionAbuse of Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1981

Donovan v. Blasters, Drillrunners & Miners Union, Local No. 29

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action against Local 29 under the LMRDA, challenging the results of an April 1980 supervised election. The Secretary sought to nullify the election and mandate a new supervised election, alleging a violation due to an employer's contribution for campaign materials. Local 29 cross-moved for certification of the election results, while an unsuccessful candidate, Smith, moved to intervene. The court denied all motions, citing the Secretary's unexplained eleven-month delay in seeking relief as a failure to act "promptly" under § 482(c). Although a technical violation was acknowledged, the court emphasized the importance of expeditious resolution in union election disputes and denied intervention due to the denial of the Secretary's motion and other factors.

Union electionsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Employer contributionsElection supervisionTimelinessInterventionUnion democracyElection irregularitiesStatutory interpretationCampaign finance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. GOL 0093086
Regular
Oct 09, 2007

PAUL ANFUSO vs. BEVERLY LA CUMBRE HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award. The Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his psyche and right knee. The Board determined that Dr. Noble's opinion, despite not reviewing all hospitalization records, constituted substantial evidence and established temporary total disability for the applicant from May 26, 2006, through August 29, 2006.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidencePsychiatric InjuryKnee InjuryCumulative TraumaPermanent and Stationary
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,559 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