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. 2024-40-5803
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2025

Reed, Kimberly v. Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a trial court's order concerning an employee's work-related injuries. The employee, Kimberly Reed, reported a left arm/shoulder injury and later sought treatment for head/face/TMJ complaints. The trial court had ordered the employer, Critical Nurse Staffing, LLC, to provide a second opinion for shoulder surgery and a panel of otolaryngologists for the TMJ condition. The Appeals Board affirmed the order for a second opinion on shoulder surgery, finding the authorized physician's reports constituted a recommendation for surgery. However, the Board reversed the order for the otolaryngologist panel, concluding there was insufficient evidence at this stage to prove the TMJ condition was causally related to the work injury. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealSecond Opinion Medical ReviewShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearTemporomandibular Joint DisorderCausation of InjuryMedical Treatment AuthorizationInterlocutory AppealEvidentiary StandardProcedural Compliance
References
10
Case No. 530397
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Czachurski v. Pal Envtl.

The claimant, Zbigniew Czachurski, an asbestos worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in October 2018, alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged noise exposure at work. Otolaryngologist Michael Alleva diagnosed him in September 2018. The employer, Pal Environmental, and its carrier controverted the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 28 and 49-bb. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this, determining the date of disablement was March 3, 2013, and the claimant knew of work-related hearing loss by October 23, 2015 (later clarified as March 23, 2015, based on otolaryngologist Robert Lerch's diagnosis). Consequently, the Board ruled the claim, filed in October 2018, was untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant knew of his hearing loss and its probable cause in 2015.

Occupational DiseaseHearing LossWorkers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical DiagnosisNoise ExposureAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maye v. Alton Manufacturing, Inc.

The claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship between their injury and employment. In this case, the claimant presented a medical report from their treating otolaryngologist, who unequivocally stated that the claimant's hearing loss was 100% causally related to their job, based on a 2007 examination. The report specifically noted the absence of other causes for the hearing loss. The court found that this medical opinion was neither speculative nor a general expression of possibility and was supported by a rational basis. As there was no conflicting medical evidence presented, the Board's rejection of the treating physician’s uncontroverted medical opinion on causation was deemed improper. Consequently, the amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipHearing LossMedical OpinionTreating PhysicianUncontroverted EvidenceBoard RejectionAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployment Injury
References
7
Case No. CV-23-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew DeWolf

Claimant, Andrew P. DeWolf, an emergency medical technician for Wayne County, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging binaural hearing loss due to prolonged workplace noise exposure. While the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish a causally-related occupational disease. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the medical opinions from two otolaryngologists to be speculative due to insufficient data on noise levels, duration of exposure, and the claimant's recreational hunting history. The court also dismissed the claimant's arguments regarding jurisdiction and due process.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHearing LossCausationMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEMTWorkplace Noise ExposureSpeculative Medical OpinionDue Process
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Matter of Granville v. Town of Hamburg

Claimant, a laborer and light equipment operator, filed for workers' compensation benefits in May 2013, alleging occupational hearing loss from loud noise exposure during his employment from 2003 to 2012. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant suffered a causally-related binaural loss of hearing. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator appealed, contending that the record lacked evidence of injurious noise exposure and a causal link. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, giving deference to the Board's finding that the opinion of the treating otolaryngologist, Sayeed Nabi, was more credible. Nabi had concluded that the significant improvement in claimant's hearing after cessation of employment indicated noise-induced hearing loss.

Occupational Hearing LossNoise ExposureCausal RelationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBinaural Hearing LossMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
11
Case No. 533323
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Mark Mogilevsky

Claimant Mark Mogilevsky, a former train car inspector, sought workers' compensation benefits for occupational binaural hearing loss. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim and found a 3.3% schedule loss of use, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. Mogilevsky appealed, challenging the Board's decision to reject the medical opinion of his otolaryngologist, Dr. Michael Alleva, who assessed a 45.3% hearing loss. The Board had dismissed Alleva's findings, stating he failed to explain how Mogilevsky could work with nearly 50% hearing loss without deficits. The Appellate Division found no evidence in the record to support the Board's rationale for rejecting Dr. Alleva's opinion. Consequently, the court concluded that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence and reversed the decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceSchedule Loss of UseBinaural Hearing LossSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewReversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2008

Claim of Zahm v. National Fuel

The claimant, who worked for the employer for 31 years, filed a claim in August 2007 alleging occupational hearing loss due to long-term noise exposure from telephone use. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a 20.4% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer appealed, arguing insufficient proof of injurious noise exposure and a lack of causal connection between the employment and the hearing loss. The appellate court agreed with the employer, finding the claimant's description of noise levels too vague and the medical testimony, specifically from treating otolaryngologist Robin Lazar-Miller, to be based on erroneous assumptions and not adequately refuting the employer's expert, Joel Bernstein. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the claim was dismissed due to insufficient proof of causation.

References
2
Showing 1-7 of 7 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