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. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This workers' compensation case addresses the amount of recovery for a claimant's work-related back and knee injuries, which led to a diagnosis of psychogenic pain disorder. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the chancellor's award of permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, and medical expenses for a chronic pain program. The Court held that permanent partial disability for a scheduled member injury (left leg) must be calculated according to statutory rates and not as a percentage of the body as a whole, overturning the chancellor's broader award. It also clarified that expert medical testimony is required to establish permanent disability due to mental illness. However, the Court affirmed that the costs of the chronic pain program were recoverable medical expenses under the workers' compensation statute. The case was remanded to recalculate temporary total disability and for a revised permanent partial disability award.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityPsychogenic Pain DisorderScheduled Member InjuryMedical ExpensesChronic Pain ProgramExpert Medical TestimonyMedical NecessityTennessee Law
References
15
Case No. ADJ605947 (MON 0274664)
Regular
Feb 02, 2009

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for injuries to the applicant's hands, upper extremities, and neck, resulting in chronic pain syndrome and a sleep disorder. The defendant disputed the extent of permanent disability and the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and sleep disorder. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury and the 85% permanent disability rating, including the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and sleep disorder. The Board also granted reconsideration to amend the award to include a life pension for the applicant, as required by law for an 85% permanent disability finding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeslie CellucciFlorence Machine ProductsState Compensation Insurance FundADJ605947Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeSleep Disorder
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00599 [224 AD3d 428]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2024

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves two appeals by New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. against Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company. New Millennium sought to vacate master arbitration awards that denied its claims for no-fault benefits for medical services. The Supreme Court denied these applications. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions, stating that an arbitrator's award will not be set aside unless it is irrational. The court also addressed the argument regarding a 20% wage offset in no-fault benefits, finding it unavailing under Insurance Law § 5102 (b). Ultimately, New Millennium was not entitled to attorneys' fees as it was not the prevailing party.

No-fault benefitsarbitration awardvacaturinsurance lawwage offsetappellate reviewmedical servicesno-fault policy exhaustionattorneys' feesCPLR Article 75
References
8
Case No. ADJ8782360
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming a prior award to Eldridge Taylor. The award included permanent disability for cumulative trauma injuries, sleep disorder, and hearing loss. The employer argued the sleep disorder rating was subsumed by orthopedic pain, the hearing loss lacked substantial evidence, and the WCJ failed to properly apportion non-industrial factors. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding sufficient medical evidence for the sleep disorder and hearing loss. The dissenting opinion argued the sleep disorder award should be rescinded as it stemmed solely from industrial pain already rated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEldridge TaylorCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8782360Cumulative TraumaCorrectional OfficerParole OfficerSleep Disorder
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case addresses a dispute regarding the payment of first-party no-fault benefits to a health provider, Pain Resource Center, as the assignee of John Hiotis, who was injured in an auto accident. The defendant, Travelers Ins. Co., challenged the validity of the assignment and the necessity of the medical services provided. The court affirmed the validity of the assignment under New York's Insurance Law and related regulations. However, based on conflicting expert testimonies, the court limited the compensable medical services to six hours and awarded the plaintiff $566.10, along with statutory interest and attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The New York court addresses a motion for reargument by Universal Acupuncture Pain Services, P.C. against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company concerning no-fault insurance claims. The central legal question is whether an expert witness's peer review report, created after a timely denial of a no-fault claim, can be admitted at trial, specifically under the Cirucci precedent regarding the specificity of denial grounds. The court grants the motion for reargument but upholds its initial ruling, which granted partial summary judgment on one of five claims. It clarifies that the expert's testimony must be strictly limited to the "concurrent or excessive care" ground initially stated by the insurer, excluding any new grounds like "medical necessity" not specified in the original denial. The court emphasizes that the issue of whether different treatment modalities constitute concurrent care for the same condition requires a trial for factual determination.

No-Fault InsurancePeer ReviewExpert Witness TestimonySummary Judgment MotionInsurance Law InterpretationSpecificity of DenialConcurrent Medical CareAcupuncture TreatmentChiropractic TreatmentPhysical Therapy
References
7
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. ADJ6776516
Regular
May 30, 2017

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained on the job, including to his back, left shoulder, left wrist, and psyche, as well as complex regional pain syndrome, coronary artery disease, and a sleep disorder. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing that the medical evidence did not support the $90\%$ permanent disability finding. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the findings of injury and treatment for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome but reducing the permanent disability to $88\%$ by excluding the sleep disorder impairment due to insufficient objective evidence. The applicant's permanent disability payments were recalculated and ordered to commence from January 21, 2011.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFrancis HargreavesSouthwest AirlinesACE USA Insurance Co.Sedgwick CMSADJ6776516Opinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderAOE/COEback injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2007

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

A jury in New York County found that the plaintiff did not suffer a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, awarding damages for past pain and suffering ($600,000), future pain and suffering ($4,240,000), and future medical expenses ($2,302,425). The Supreme Court's judgment was subsequently modified by the appellate court. The appellate panel reduced the award for future medical expenses by $150,111 by vacating the award for household services. It also vacated the award for future pain and suffering and remanded for a new trial on those damages, unless the plaintiff stipulated to a reduced amount of $2,500,000 for future pain and suffering. The award for past pain and suffering was affirmed, considering the plaintiff's injuries including a herniated disc, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewDamages ReductionHerniated DiscReflex Sympathetic DystrophyPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,558 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