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. 2019-01-0368
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Ibarra, Grecia M. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.,

Ms. Grecia M. Ibarra, an employee, filed a claim alleging a low back injury from repetitively lifting heavy boxes while working for Amazon. An expedited hearing was held to determine her entitlement to a panel of orthopedists, which Amazon disputed, citing lack of timely notice, an identifiable injury, and causation. The Court found that Ms. Ibarra provided timely notice to Amazon and sustained a gradual, identifiable injury. Although Dr. Ballard, the panel physician, did not provide a causation opinion, the Court ruled that denying the claim on that basis at this stage was premature. Consequently, the Court ordered Amazon to provide Ms. Ibarra an orthopedist panel for her back injury.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryGradual InjuryTimely NoticeCausationOrthopedist PanelExpedited HearingCumulative TraumaRepetitive MotionEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. G107 435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2023

Matter of Marku v. ABM Industries

This case concerns the claim of Denise Perry under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) previously found that the employer, Adventist Home Care, established a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by the claimant for willfully making false statements to obtain benefits. Consequently, the WCLJ disallowed indemnity benefits and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. A Board Panel decision filed on February 17, 2022, affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The claimant subsequently filed an application for reconsideration on March 18, 2022, which the Board Panel reviewed. After considering the claimant’s arguments, the Board Panel determined that the application did not raise new issues or present new material evidence, nor did it demonstrate an erroneous statement of material fact or law in the prior decision. Therefore, the Board Panel, by a majority vote, affirmed its prior decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationIndemnity Benefits DisallowanceWCL § 114-a PenaltyApplication for Reconsideration DeniedBoard Panel AffirmationWillful MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionEmployer Established Violation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund, now Texas Mutual, challenged an appeals panel decision by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission which awarded lifetime income benefits to claimant Leonard D. Watts. Watts, a truck driver for Mono Chem Corporation, sustained a leg injury in 1994, leading to severe medical conditions and ultimately the loss of use of both feet. A hearing officer initially denied lifetime benefits due to insufficient evidence of a causal connection to the original injury, but the appeals panel twice reversed this decision, rendering a new decision in favor of Watts. Texas Mutual sought judicial review, arguing the appeals panel exceeded its statutory authority and improperly engaged in factual-sufficiency review. The district court set aside the appeals panel's decision. This court, however, reversed the district court's decision, affirming the appeals panel’s award of lifetime income benefits to Watts, holding that the appeals panel acted within its statutory authority.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewJudicial ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCausationRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelTexas Labor Code
References
13
Case No. 2024-60-3877
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

DAVIDSON, JAMES v. GIBSON GUITAR

James Davidson injured his left shoulder while working for Gibson Guitar. Despite a medical referral to an orthopedist, Gibson failed to provide a panel of orthopedists for almost two years and later dismissed an authorized physician's surgery recommendation. The Court found Mr. Davidson is likely to prevail on medical benefits and awarded attorney's fees due to Gibson's unreasonable delays in treatment. However, his request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient proof of wages. Gibson was also referred to the Compliance Program for failing to provide timely medical treatment and a panel of orthopedic physicians.

Medical BenefitsAttorney's FeesTemporary Disability BenefitsShoulder InjuryLabral TearSurgical RecommendationTimely Medical TreatmentCompliance Program ReferralExpedited HearingMedical Causation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Burns v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to injuries from an automobile accident. As an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, his claim was processed through a neutral outside arbitration process. An arbitrator established his claim and average weekly wage. Claimant appealed, arguing his average weekly wage should have been calculated differently due to a recent promotion, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2). An arbitration panel declined to address this argument because it was not raised before the arbitrator. The appellate court affirmed the panel's decision, citing that the panel could decline review of issues not previously raised, consistent with 12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii].

ArbitrationAverage Weekly WageWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationAdministrative LawProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mulligan v. Workers' Compensation Board

The claimant, a former workers' compensation law judge, appealed the denial of reduced earning benefits, which stemmed from his claim that stress from his job caused him to voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. He had previously received benefits for a 1995 angina attack. An arbitrator and subsequent arbitration panel concluded that he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, a determination the claimant contested, asserting his retirement was due to work-related stress. The court, led by Judge Carpinello, found substantial evidence supported the panel's decision, noting the claimant never complained of stress to supervisors, sought accommodations, or applied for disability retirement. The court affirmed the arbitration panel's decision, denying the claimant's appeal.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning BenefitsWorkers Compensation BenefitsArbitration Panel DecisionSubstantial EvidenceDisability RetirementJob-Related StressAppellate ReviewLabor Market WithdrawalClaim Denial
References
8
Case No. 2018-04-0155
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2018

Ramsey, Jack D. v. Averitt Express, Inc.

Jack D. Ramsey, a driver for Averitt Express, Inc., sought expedited hearing benefits for a work-related low back injury sustained after slipping on ice. The Court found that Averitt's provided panel of orthopedists did not fully comply with statutory requirements, effectively limiting Mr. Ramsey's choice of physician. An authorized physician, Dr. Mark Gillespy, concluded Mr. Ramsey's condition was partially work-related, placed him at maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a three-percent impairment, and stated he could no longer work as a driver. Mr. Ramsey subsequently sought unauthorized medical treatment. The Court denied Mr. Ramsey's requests for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses and temporary disability benefits, ordering Averitt to provide a new panel of orthopedists in compliance with state law.

Expedited HearingBack InjuryMedical Treatment DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsPhysician Panel ComplianceUnauthorized Medical TreatmentMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Impairment RatingLumbar SprainDegenerative Disc Disease
References
3
Case No. WCB No. G076 2707
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Matter of Duncan v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

This Board Panel Decision concerns an appeal by the applicant, Joseph Lafayette, regarding a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) finding on the causal relationship of his back injury. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, neck, and shoulder during his employment. The WCLJ had previously established a causal relationship for the neck and shoulder injuries but disallowed the claim for the back injury. Upon review, the Board Panel determined that the medical evidence in the record supports a causal relationship between the claimant's employment and his lower back injury. As a result, the Panel modified the WCLJ's decision to establish a causal relationship for the back injury, while affirming the other aspects of the original decision.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidencePanel ReviewWCLJ DecisionModificationAppeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leone v. Columbia Sussex Corp.

Alfred Leone sustained injuries when a scaffold plank broke at a construction site owned and operated by Columbia Sussex Corp. He was an employee of Smith Glass Co., a subcontractor, and the scaffold was erected by another subcontractor, Panelized Systems, Ltd. Columbia Sussex Corp. appealed orders denying its motion to amend its answer with a Workers’ Compensation Law defense and denying summary judgment on its third-party complaint against Panelized. The appellate court reversed the denial to amend, finding a question of fact on whether Leone was a special employee of Columbia, thus allowing the Workers' Compensation defense to be asserted. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for indemnification against Panelized, ruling contractual indemnification inapplicable and common-law indemnification premature.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentAmended AnswerSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. 2018-01-0675
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2019

Hill, Camesha v. Allegis Group

Camesha Hill, an employee, sustained a head injury while working for Allegis Group. She requested a panel of shoulder orthopedists after a directly referred doctor declined to see her. The employer argued that it fulfilled its obligations by providing an initial panel and accepting subsequent referrals to doctors within the same practice group. The court found that the employer was not required to provide another panel and denied Ms. Hill's requested relief.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsPhysician PanelReferralShoulder InjuryCausationTreating PhysicianEmployer ObligationsTennessee LawWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,613 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