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

People ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court judgment in New York County, dated October 29, 1975, which had dismissed a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of her 15-year-old child from the child's grandmother. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, finding that while extraordinary circumstances existed (mother's voluntary surrender of custody, child's long-term residence with grandmother, mother's unwed status and living situation, and past emotional issues) that warranted applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the original hearing was inadequate. The court noted deficiencies such as the child not testifying, restricted inquiry into the mother's relationship with the child, and limited elaboration by a psychiatric worker. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a new hearing to properly determine the child's best interest, to be conducted before a different judge. Justice Kupferman concurred with the 'best interest' standard but dissented on the need to assign a different judge.

Child CustodyHabeas CorpusParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewFamily LawRemandInadequate HearingJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. 2016-07-0351
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2016

Crumble, Mae v. Express Services

This expedited hearing order addresses a workers' compensation claim filed by Mae Crumble against Express Services and New Hampshire Ins. Co. for a right shoulder injury sustained on November 14, 2015. The case was remanded by the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to determine if Dr. Sioson was an authorized treating physician whose causation opinion was entitled to a presumption of correctness. The Court found that Express Services failed to provide Ms. Crumble with a valid panel of physicians, noting issues with the selection process and Ms. Crumble's intellectual limitations. Consequently, Dr. Sioson's opinion was not afforded a presumption of correctness, and the Court determined it did not meet the legal standard for causation. The Court ordered Express Services to provide Ms. Crumble with a new, valid panel of physicians to evaluate and treat her injury.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingRemandAuthorized Treating PhysicianCausation OpinionPanel of PhysiciansRight Shoulder InjuryMedical ExaminationEmployer's DutyEmployee Selection
References
4
Case No. ADJ7730252
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

MARIA OLVERA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns sanctions and costs imposed against Peter T. Brown & Associates, Peter T. Brown, Esq., and hearing representative Shapoor Ashorzadeh. The Court of Appeal annulled the Appeals Board's previous decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the matter is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing on sanctions and costs, allowing the petitioners their right to be heard. The WCJ will then issue a new decision after this hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctions and CostsRemandCumulative Trauma ClaimSpecific InjuryDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingLabor Code section 5813Non-attorney Representative SupervisionPetition for Writ of Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ3362610 (AHM 0122924)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

JOSE COLLASO, JOSE COLLAZO vs. PACIFIC FRESH FOOD CO., PREMIER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 146 days after the original dismissal order, far exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board noted that untimely petitions cannot be excused by mistake or excusable neglect, even if the applicant experienced homelessness. However, the WCAB will remand the case to the WCJ to treat the petition as a request to reopen the dismissal for good cause and schedule a hearing on that specific issue.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissal for lack of prosecutionPetition to reopenGood causeJurisdictional time limitsFinal orderUntimely petitionContinuing jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
16
Case No. 07-03-0320-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2003

John Folmer v. State

Appellant John Folmer appealed his conviction for theft over $1,500. The court reporter indicated that Folmer had not paid for or arranged payment for the record, and there was no evidence in the record regarding his indigence. Consequently, the appellate court abated the appeal and remanded the case to the 106th District Court of Lynn County. The trial court was ordered to conduct a hearing to determine if Folmer wished to prosecute the appeal and if he was indigent, and then to transcribe the hearing, make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and file a supplemental record by October 17, 2003.

Theft convictionCriminal appealIndigence determinationCourt record paymentAbatement and remandDue processAppellate procedureTrial court hearingSufficiency of evidenceTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 2019-06-1008
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2021

Harris, Patricia v. Nashville Center for Rehabilatation and Healing

The Court initially awarded workers’ compensation benefits and a 20% attorney's fee for permanent and temporary disability benefits, but denied a 20% fee for unpaid medical benefits. Both parties appealed, with the employee challenging the denial of attorney's fees for medical benefits. The Appeals Board affirmed the original decision except for the attorney's fee denial and remanded the case with instructions to award the fee. This Order on Remand, therefore, grants the employee’s attorney an additional fee of $5,209.16, representing twenty percent of the unpaid medical expenses, to be paid by the employee. The prior September 28, 2020 compensation order is incorporated, with the exception of the holding denying the attorney’s fees for medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesMedical BenefitsRemandAppeals BoardCourt OrderEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilitiesIndemnity InsuranceWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Kyne & Molfetas

This case involves an appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award, which was subsequently reversed and remanded to Special Term. The court mandated a hearing to determine two critical aspects: first, whether the arbitration contract was formed between the petitioner labor union and the respondent as an individual or on behalf of a corporate entity; and second, whether the respondent received due notice of the arbitration. The decision emphasizes that the court, not the arbitrator, must decide on the existence of a valid contract and proper notice. Furthermore, even if these conditions are met, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator to clarify the ambiguity of the award, which directed payments to unidentified individuals, rendering it imperfectly executed and not a final and definite award as required by the Civil Practice Act.

ArbitrationContract ExistenceNotice RequirementAmbiguity in AwardRemandSpecial TermLabor UnionRespondent IdentityCivil Practice ActProcedural Reversal
References
4
Case No. Docket No. 2014-02-0064, State File No. 98848-2014
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2015

Hadzic, Admir v. Averitt Express

This interlocutory appeal concerns employee Admir Hadzic, a truck driver, who sought medical and temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained while lifting a cooler into his work truck. The employer, Averitt Express, denied the claim, asserting the injury was not work-related. The trial court denied benefits but controversially ruled that an affidavit was not required for an expedited hearing if the employee testified. The Appeals Board, upon review, determined that Tennessee regulations mandate affidavits for all expedited hearing motions, regardless of subsequent testimony. Consequently, the Board vacated the trial court's decision, finding it legally unsupported, and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules for efficient dispute resolution in workers' compensation claims.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealExpedited HearingAffidavit RequirementRegulatory InterpretationStatutory ConstructionProcedural RulesRemandVacatedEmployee Benefits
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Barnhart

This case, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), reviews the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability insurance benefits to the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, while the defendant sought a remand for a new administrative hearing. The Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made legal errors by substituting personal judgment for medical opinions and by presenting incomplete hypotheticals to the vocational expert. Given the established record from two prior hearings and the protracted seven-year duration of the plaintiff's application, the Court determined that remanding for a new hearing was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's cross-motion, and remanded the case solely for the calculation of benefits.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Medical Expert TestimonyVocational Expert TestimonySchizoaffective DisorderMajor Depression with Psychotic FeaturesMigraine HeadachesNon-exertional Limitations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 8,720 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