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. WCB #G093 3006
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

Matter of Ali v. Liberty Lines Transit

This case involves a claimant, Ahmad Naji, who sustained a consequential lower back injury after an initial work-related incident. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) previously determined he had a permanent partial disability (PPD) and awarded PPD benefits based on an established average weekly wage (AWW). The claimant requested reconsideration, arguing that a prior schedule loss of use (SLU) award should be factored into the PPD rate calculation. However, the WCB concluded that SLU and PPD awards are distinct benefits and the former does not influence the latter. Consequently, the Board affirmed its original decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageSchedule Loss of UseConsequential InjuryReconsideration of DecisionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBoard Panel MemorandumClaimant RightsEmployer LiabilityWCB Review
References
5
Case No. 2015-01-0377
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2018

Fleming, Jose v. Newly Weds Foods, Inc.

José Fleming, a 62-year-old dumper, sustained a low-back injury at Newly Weds Foods, Inc. in 2015, leading to a claim for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. The primary dispute involved determining the extent of PPD benefits, specifically whether to adopt the treating orthopedist Dr. Rickey Hutcheson's 2% whole-body impairment rating or Chiropractor Victor Poletajev's 11% rating. Additionally, the eligibility for a resulting PPD award after Mr. Fleming's termination from Newly Weds was contested. The Court ultimately sided with Dr. Hutcheson's assessment, finding Mr. Fleming failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of his causation opinion. Consequently, Mr. Fleming was awarded an original PPD benefit of $4,916.43, while his claim for a resulting award was denied because he was employed at a higher wage when the original compensation period expired.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPPD BenefitsImpairment RatingLumbar StrainPre-existing ConditionCausationTreating PhysicianChiropractorTermination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Timmy Dale Britt v. Dyer's Employment Agency, Inc.

Timmy Dale Britt, a temporary employee of Dyer's Employment Agency, sustained a work-related injury resulting in carpal tunnel syndrome. Following his injury and the termination of his temporary assignment at Mark IV, Dyer's did not return him to work. The trial court initially applied a lower statutory multiplier to his permanent partial disability benefits, reasoning that Dyer's could not be faulted for the temporary assignment ending. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated this decision, ruling that the higher multiplier should apply. This was based on the fact that Dyer's neither returned Mr. Britt to employment at an equal or greater wage, nor was he terminated for misconduct, making the 'meaningful return to work' concept inapplicable. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine the appropriate disability benefits using the greater multiplier.

Workers' CompensationTemporary EmploymentStatutory MultiplierPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer ResponsibilityReturn to Work PolicyRemandTennessee Supreme Court
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 1972

Claim of Palmer v. Candies

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision, filed May 12, 1972, and amended October 11, 1972. The central issue was the use of the appropriate multiplier for compensation benefits under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, specifically challenging the Board's use of a 245 multiplier under subdivision 3. The employer's factory closed three months annually, leading the claimant to work approximately 167 days in the preceding year. The Board concluded that neither subdivision 1 nor 2 applied, prompting the resort to subdivision 3. The appellants contended that subdivision 3's 200-day multiplier was a maximum, a contention rejected by the court, which clarified that 200 is a minimum. The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawWage CalculationMultiplierSection 14Subdivision 3Appellate ReviewCompensation BenefitsSeasonal EmploymentDaily MultiplierLegal Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2008

Tryon v. Saturn Corp.

Earl Douglas Tryon sustained neck and hand injuries while working for Saturn Corporation, leading to a workers\' compensation claim. The core issue was whether Mr. Tryon had a \'meaningful return to work\' after his second neck surgery, which determines the multiplier for permanent partial disability benefits. The trial court found he did not have a meaningful return, awarding 5.5 times his medical impairment rating, while the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed, applying a lower multiplier. The Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Panel, affirming the trial court\'s finding that Mr. Tryon\'s retirement was reasonably related to his injuries and Dr. Wade\'s advice, thus upholding the higher benefit multiplier. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and costs were taxed to Saturn.

Permanent Partial DisabilityMeaningful Return to Work DoctrineStatutory Benefit CapsNeck Injury CompensationVocational Disability AssessmentMedical Impairment RatingRetirement Due to InjuryEmployer-Provided Physician AdviceAppellate Panel ReversalTrial Court Decision Affirmed
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Proulx v. Burnett Process

This case involves appeals from four decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning the application of amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (w) and 27 (2). The core issue is whether the mandatory deposit of Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) awards into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) under amended § 27 (2) applies retroactively to injuries sustained before the amendment's effective date of March 13, 2007, when the PPD awards themselves were made after July 1, 2007. The carriers argued against retroactive application and claimed that mandating lump-sum payments for uncapped PPD awards was speculative and violated equal protection rights. The Board, and subsequently the Appellate Division, affirmed the decisions, holding that the relevant date for applying the amendment to § 27 (2) is the date of the award, not the date of the accident, and that the calculations are not speculative as present value is legislatively mandated.

Workers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationEqual ProtectionLump-Sum PaymentsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPresent Value
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Milan Seating Systems

Frances Barnett, an employee of Milan Seating Systems, suffered bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, leading to two workers' compensation lawsuits. The first settled a left-hand injury, while the second sought compensation for a right-hand carpal tunnel and a cubital tunnel injury. A key issue on appeal was whether Barnett was still employed by her "pre-injury employer" after Milan Seating was sold to Kongsberg Automotive, which impacted the application of a 1.5 multiplier to her benefits. The court reversed the chancery court's decision, ruling that a company sale means an employee is no longer with the pre-injury employer, thus lifting the 1.5 multiplier cap for the cubital tunnel injury. However, the appellate court affirmed the chancery court's finding that the right carpal tunnel injury was not new, and further compensation was barred by res judicata. The case was remanded for vocational disability determination regarding the cubital tunnel injury without the multiplier limitation.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromePre-Injury EmployerStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataPermanent Partial ImpairmentVocational DisabilityCompany SaleMultiplier Cap
References
14
Case No. OAK 0255953
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

CLINTON HENDRIX vs. GALGON INDUSTRIES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

This case clarifies that California Labor Code sections 4607 and 5814.5 do not authorize the use of a lodestar multiplier for attorney's fees awarded to enforce medical treatment awards. The Appeals Board rescinded its previous directive to defer consideration of section 4607 fees, affirming that the enforcement of medical treatment awards aligns with social policy and the public interest. The case is returned to the trial level for recalculation of fees under these statutes, without a lodestar multiplier, but acknowledging a prior final award under section 4607.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClinton HendrixGalgon IndustriesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSuperior National InsuranceliquidationBroadsPIREreconsiderationLabor Code sections 4607 and 5814.5attorney's fees
References
6
Case No. 2018-08-0321
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2020

Faulkner, Ivon v. United Parcel Service

Ivon Faulkner sustained compensable injuries while working for United Parcel Service, leading to a dispute over his permanent disability and benefits. The Court determined that Mr. Faulkner was not permanently and totally disabled but was entitled to permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, including increased benefits due to not returning to work and his age. The Court denied his claim for additional temporary disability benefits and dismissed the claim against the Subsequent Injury Fund. Ultimately, UPS was ordered to pay Mr. Faulkner $42,410.12 in PPD benefits, and his attorney was awarded a 20% fee.

Permanent Partial DisabilityVocational Disability AssessmentTemporary Total Disability BenefitsAttorney's Fees AwardWage Loss CalculationMedical Impairment RatingLow Back Injury ClaimShoulder StrainMaximum Medical ImprovementSubsequent Injury Fund
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

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
Showing 1-10 of 48 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