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
Jan 31, 2000

Claim of Rose v. International Paper Co.

The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from January 31, 2000. The Board had refused to review a determination that denied the carrier's request for an adjournment after scheduled lay witnesses and doctors failed to appear at a March 1999 hearing. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) had denied the adjournment, established the claim, and made awards. The employer contended the WCLJ erred in refusing the adjournment, arguing that Board rule 12 NYCRR 300.10 (b) impermissibly restricted their right to appeal under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court found the WCLJ's denial of the adjournment was not an abuse of discretion, citing the employer's lack of preparedness and the reasonableness of the rule in speeding claim resolution. The decision of the Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawAdjournment DenialBoard ReviewAppellate ProcedureWitness TestimonyMedical EvidenceWCLJ DiscretionDue ProcessRegulatory InterpretationSubpoena
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trice v. Traughber

Watson Trice, an employee, was denied unemployment compensation after being discharged by Golden Circle Broadcasting, Inc., for refusing to work at a new transmitter site lacking sanitary facilities. The employer moved its operations, and despite assurances, running water was unavailable for several days. Trice refused to work under these unsanitary conditions and was terminated. Initially, his claim was denied by the Department of Employment Security, an appeals referee, the Board of Review, the Chancery Court, and the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling that while a discharge might be justifiable, Trice's refusal did not constitute "misconduct connected with his work" under T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B). The court emphasized the employer's duty to provide reasonable and proper sanitary facilities and found Trice's refusal reasonable given the prevailing conditions.

Unemployment CompensationEmployee DischargeWorkplace ConditionsSanitary FacilitiesEmployer DutyEmployee MisconductTennessee LawAppellate ReviewDenial of BenefitsReversal of Judgment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1981

Claim of Buehler v. New York Telephone Co.

The claimant suffered a job-related injury on October 23, 1978. The self-insured employer, New York Telephone Company, ceased benefit payments on March 10, 1980, due to the claimant's refusal to undergo a consultant's examination, specifically a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test (MMPIT). A referee initially awarded compensation and directed continued payments. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the referee's decision, finding the claimant's refusal reasonable as her disability was orthopedic, and there was no medical evidence of psychiatric involvement. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the reasonableness of refusing the MMPIT was a question of fact for the Board and found no basis to disturb their prerogative, especially since the issue of restoring the case for further record development was not raised before the Board.

Disability BenefitsMedical Examination RefusalMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory TestOrthopedic InjuryPsychiatric EvaluationWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision AffirmedQuestion of FactSelf-Insured EmployerCausal Relationship Established
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1982

Claim of Burroughs v. Goshen Public School

Claimant, an industrial arts teacher, sustained a compensable injury to his left eye on June 22, 1976, resulting in a traumatic cataract and industrial blindness. A 100% schedule award for loss of use of the left eye was initially granted but later rescinded by the Workers' Compensation Board after the carrier appealed, arguing the award was premature as vision might improve with surgery. The case was restored to the Trial Calendar, and an administrative law judge reinstated the award after hearing testimony. The Board unanimously affirmed, finding the claimant's refusal to undergo eye surgery reasonable due to potential problems. The employer and carrier appealed this affirmance, contending the refusal was unreasonable as a matter of law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board's determination on the reasonableness of refusal to undergo surgery is a factual finding supported by substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation BoardIndustrial InjuryLeft Eye InjuryTraumatic CataractIndustrial BlindnessSchedule AwardSurgery RefusalReasonableness of RefusalSubstantial EvidenceFactual Finding
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

In re the Claim of Teller

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant, a production manager, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. This decision was based on the finding that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The Board determined that the claimant refused a transfer to a new location, and his reasons for refusal, including unchanged salary, reasonable commuting distance, and non-mandatory overtime, were not considered good cause. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Voluntary DepartureGood CauseUnemployment BenefitsTransfer RefusalSubstantial EvidenceProduction ManagerSalary UnchangedCommuting DistanceOvertime Not MandatoryAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Richard Graham, a nurse with Tourette's syndrome and spinal stenosis, sued the New York State Office of Mental Health and others for disability discrimination and retaliation after his probationary employment was terminated. Graham alleged refusal of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities during a job transfer and retaliation for requesting accommodations. The defendants argued that Graham failed to cooperate in the interactive accommodation process and was legitimately terminated for falsifying his employment application regarding prior state employment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no refusal of reasonable accommodation and that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProbationary EmploymentFalsification of Employment ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LeaveInteractive ProcessHuman Rights Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Ozone Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Mathial Bonhomme, a black man of Haitian ancestry, brought an employment discrimination suit under Title VII against Ozone Industries, Inc., Gilbert Austein, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District No. 15. Bonhomme alleged racial and national origin discrimination due to his layoff and subsequent refusal to be rehired. The defendants argued that the refusal to rehire was based on their belief that Bonhomme was involved in a watch theft. Although the court found that Bonhomme established a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendants successfully articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Bonhomme failed to prove that the defendants' stated reason was a pretext for discrimination, leading to the dismissal of his case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationLayoffRefusal to RehirePrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurdine Standard
References
7
Case No. M2013-01235-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2014

Kimberly A. Sparkman v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Labor And Workforce Development, and First Tennessee Bank, N. A.

This appeal concerns the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to Kimberly A. Sparkman. She was terminated from her employment at First Tennessee Bank, N.A., for refusing an alcohol test after her supervisors detected alcohol on her. Sparkman had previously been warned that refusal to take such a test would result in termination. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Appeals Tribunal, the Board of Review, and the Chancery Court all found her refusal to constitute work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from benefits. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the smell of alcohol provided a reasonable basis for the test request and that her refusal, despite prior warning, was work-related misconduct under state law.

unemployment benefitsworkplace misconductalcohol testingrefusal to testemployment terminationjudicial reviewadministrative decisionTennessee lawappellate reviewreasonable suspicion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. SRO 0139219
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

JENNIFER BALKOWITSCH vs. HOME DEPOT

This case involves an applicant denied self-procured medical treatment by her employer, Home Depot, after failing to secure an MPN physician within reasonable proximity who would accept her. The Appeals Board reversed the initial finding, holding Home Depot liable for self-procured treatment. This decision was based on Home Depot's failure to prove it reasonably provided an MPN physician in accordance with accessibility standards, constituting a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN access standardsself-procured medical treatmentreasonable medical treatmentneglect or refusalapplicant's residenceemployment dutiesadministrative regulationemployer's obligationphysician availability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,897 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