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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Genesco, Inc.

This workers' compensation case involves an appeal by Genesco, Inc. regarding awards granted to the Plaintiff after sustaining a back injury in 1980. The Defendant challenged the Chancellor's computations of average weekly wages and compensation under both statutory provisions (T.C.A. § 50-902(c)) and an independent contract, arguing actual earnings were not properly considered. Additionally, Genesco disputed liability for medical expenses without proof of necessity and reasonableness. The Court reversed the Chancellor's method of computing average weekly wages, mandating the use of actual earnings over a 52-week period with deductions only for sickness or fortuitous events, and also reversed the contract computation. Notably, the court overruled prior precedent (*Phillips v. Fleetguard Div.*), shifting the burden of proof for the necessity and reasonableness of medical expenses to the employer when the physicians are designated by them. The case was remanded for recalculation of benefits and further proof regarding physician designation.

average weekly wage calculationworkers' compensation appealmedical expense liabilityburden of proofstatutory interpretationremand for recalculationemployer designated physiciansTennessee lawinjury compensationcontractual benefits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ2212288
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

GUILLERMO GOMEZ vs. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration because the case file lacked proof of service for the notice of the lien trial. The Board has ordered the defendant to provide proof of service within 15 days. This action is intended to allow for a proper review of the facts and law regarding the dismissed liens.

Lien Claim DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceMinutes of HearingLien TrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJBrinderson ConstructorsTravelers InsuranceWestside Health-Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Seatrain Lines, Inc., operating as a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11, objected to a proof of claim filed by the BSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund. The Pension Fund sought $323,163.00 in withdrawal liability, asserting Seatrain was an 'employer' under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 due to its prior engagement of stevedores for longshoremen services. Seatrain argued it was not an employer because the longshoremen were hired, paid, and controlled by independent stevedores, not Seatrain directly. The court examined common law indicia of employment and congressional intent behind the Multiemployer Act. It concluded that Seatrain was neither a common law employer nor an employer under the Multiemployer Act, and thus had no withdrawal liability. The Pension Fund's claim was consequently ordered expunged.

BankruptcyMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorLongshoremenERISAChapter 11Proof of ClaimClaim Objection
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marchese v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Claimant, injured in October 1997, initially received full wages from their employer, then workers' compensation benefits after employment termination. Following an award of benefits in February 2000, a dispute arose regarding the payment of claimant's counsel fee. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the fee should be paid in installments from continuing payments to the claimant, rather than from the portion reimbursing the employer. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that continuing payments were subject to adjustment and thus not an award of compensation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and finding no unfairness in the payment method, as the award was sufficient to cover both employer reimbursement and the attorneys' lien.

Attorney FeesWorkers' Compensation LawLien on CompensationContinuing PaymentsBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewEmployer ReimbursementAward Payment MethodStatutory InterpretationCounsel Fee
References
2
Case No. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ8166052
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

MARIA GARCIA vs. JOSE MARTINEZ ENTERPRISES, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming the dismissal of lien claims for failure to pay activation fees. The lien claimants, Imperial Medical Management and Allied Injury Management, argued they did not receive notice of the lien conference. However, the Board found evidence of proper service via US mail and email, consistent with their designated methods. Presumptions of regular performance of official duty and proper service applied, and a bare assertion of non-receipt was insufficient to overcome proof of service.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ConferenceService of NoticePresumption of ServiceNon-ReceiptLien ClaimantLien Activation FeeOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,689 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