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. ADJ1438639 (GRO0024593) ADJ3262777 (GRO0025366)
Regular
Jul 06, 2011

DENNIS TIMMONS vs. CALIFORNIA MENS COLONY, STATE COMP. INS. FUND, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior award of Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits to the applicant, Dennis Timmons. The applicant sought SIBTF benefits based on a claimed pre-existing disability from a 1991 injury, arguing it imposed a prophylactic restriction from very heavy work that contributed to his 2000 industrial injury. However, the Board found no substantial medical evidence of a ratable pre-existing disability at the time of the 2000 injury, as prior medical reports indicated no residual disability and the applicant returned to work without restrictions. The Board concluded that a retroactive prophylactic restriction, without evidence of actual prior work limitations, is insufficient to establish SIBTF eligibility.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpre-existing disabilityindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEprophylactic restrictionWCJ
References
2
Case No. 2019-05-0198
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Hopkins, Casey v. EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING CO.

Casey Hopkins, an employee, suffered a significant work injury in December 2016, leading to multiple reconstructive operations and treatment for PTSD with Dr. Greg Kyser. Employbridge, her employer, initially provided light-duty accommodation but ceased temporary disability benefits in November 2018. Hopkins sought additional temporary partial disability benefits, asserting that her medical restrictions, including "no factory work or work around machinery" from Dr. Kyser, were still in place and Employbridge failed to provide suitable work. The Court found Hopkins likely to prevail, holding she is entitled to the requested benefits because Employbridge could not return her to work within her restrictions. The Court ordered Employbridge to file a wage statement to calculate the specific amount owed.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical RestrictionsPTSDExpedited HearingWork InjuryReturn to WorkWage StatementMurfreesboroTennessee
References
2
Case No. ADJ11017092
Regular
May 04, 2018

RICHARD CARL vs. DELTA PAINTING & COATING, INC., d/b/a TRU-TECH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant denied further temporary disability benefits after rejecting a modified work offer. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to an illegible medical report relied upon by the judge, which prevented a determination of the work restrictions. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings, potentially including obtaining a legible report from the physician who set the restrictions. This ensures due process and a proper adjudication of whether the work offer was appropriate.

Petition for ReconsiderationModified Work OfferTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment RestrictionsBad FaithIllegible Medical ReportDevelop the RecordVocational RehabilitationIndustrial InjuryRight Knee
References
6
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of Winkelman v. Sumitomo Rubber USA

Claimant Ronald Winkelman sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018 while working for Sumitomo Rubber USA. After the second injury, he sought treatment and was found to have a temporary disability, leading to a note with lifting restrictions. When the employer couldn't accommodate, he was told not to return. He subsequently worked per diem jobs and filed for awards. The carrier suspended payments and alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, arguing claimant made false statements about his activities and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding that no violation occurred and that claimant was entitled to reduced earnings, concluding that observed activities were not proven to exceed restrictions and sporadic assistance to his spouse was not an intentional misrepresentation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityReduced EarningsFalse StatementMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationSurveillance VideoLabor Market AttachmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
13
Case No. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2004

Claim of Disarno v. Mattel/Fisher Price, Inc.

A maintenance mechanic sustained a work-related lower back injury in September 1997. Despite returning to work with medical restrictions, he chose to take an early retirement incentive in May 1998, immediately securing a less physically demanding job. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant's injury and medical restrictions motivated his retirement to pursue alternative, lighter-duty employment.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementWork-Related InjuryMedical RestrictionsLight DutyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealSubstantial EvidenceAffirmation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 14,897 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