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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This Supreme Court opinion addresses whether the failure to file a statistical data (SD1) form contemporaneously with a final judgment in a workers' compensation case affects the judgment's finality for appeal purposes. The employer, Holston Health Care and Rehabilitation Center, appealed an adverse workers' compensation ruling, arguing the appeal time hadn't begun due to the missing SD1 form. The employee, Linda J. Corum, contended the appeal was untimely under Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court held that the Supreme Court's procedural rules supersede conflicting statutes, ruling that a workers' compensation judgment is final on the date of entry by the trial court clerk, regardless of the SD1 form's filing. Consequently, the employer's appeal was dismissed as untimely.

Workers' CompensationAppeal TimelinessSD1 FormFinal JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureTennessee Supreme CourtRule 4Judicial PowerLegislative Intent
References
20
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

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

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. 2019-08-0191
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2021

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

Frederick Russell, an assembly technician for Aluma Form, Inc., suffered a left shoulder and neck injury in January 2018. The employer accepted a shoulder sprain but contested a labral tear and impingement. The Court reviewed conflicting medical testimony from Dr. Jones and Dr. Dalal regarding causation and impairment. The Court ruled that Mr. Russell successfully proved causation for his shoulder injury and that he was justified in seeking unauthorized treatment due to the employer's actions. Consequently, Aluma Form was ordered to pay permanent partial disability benefits of $11,879.49, temporary disability benefits of $9,308.86, and Mr. Russell's medical bills from Dr. Dalal and Memphis Surgery Center. Dr. Dalal was designated as the authorized treating physician for future medical benefits.

Shoulder InjuryLabral TearImpingement SyndromeMedical CausationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentOrthopedic SurgeryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRange of Motion Impairment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. ADJ7960157 (RDG 0095395) ADJ4276340
Regular
Apr 03, 2013

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Independent Business Forms, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this reconsideration. The Board intends to further study the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

SandrockIndependent Business FormsPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyADJ7960157ADJ4276340ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRedding District OfficeSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2012

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This document is an application filed by an inmate, V.T.S.b, seeking to proceed in District Court without prepaying fees or costs due to indigence. The applicant declares an inability to pay the costs of proceedings and asserts entitlement to the requested relief. The form details the applicant's incarceration status within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and requests legal materials, specifically law books and envelopes, to support the pursuit of their case. The application was stamped by the Seventh Court of Appeals on August 22, 2012.

Inmate RightsIndigency ApplicationFee WaiverCourt CostsPro Se LitigationTexas Legal SystemCriminal Justice SystemAppellate ProcedureAccess to JusticeCorrectional Facility
References
0
Case No. ADJ4276340 RDG 0095395 ADJ7960157
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision regarding David Sandrock's cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB found that Sandrock's cumulative trauma injury ending July 28, 2006, is not presumptively compensable because no claim form was filed with the employer, as required by Labor Code sections 5401 and 5402. The Board determined that the insurer, Preferred Employers, did not violate due process by submitting the case on briefs at a conference. The WCAB deferred the issue of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderCumulative TraumaPresumptive CompensabilityClaim Form90-Day Investigation PeriodDue ProcessIndustrial InjuryAOE/COE
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The employer, Charles Cutting, and his workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had denied the carrier's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the carrier's failure to file the prescribed form C-251.3 prior to the award of compensation. The carrier argued that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) nor § 15 (8) (Z) explicitly required this specific form and that their timely filing of form C-251.2 provided notice to the Fund. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that 12 NYCRR 300.5 (e) mandates claims for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) to be filed on a chair-prescribed form, which was C-251.3. The court reiterated the Board Chair’s authority to issue regulations and forms, and the Board’s right to insist on strict adherence to these requirements, deeming the argument regarding lack of prejudice to the Fund irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementSpecial Disability FundForm C-251.3Form C-251.2Regulation AdherenceBoard Chair AuthorityAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Claims
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained injuries when a form wall fell on his hand during the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. This court reversed that decision, holding that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.2 (a), which mandates proper bracing for forms, applies to forms even during their construction phase, not just when they are completed. The court found that the back form wall was not properly braced, leading to the plaintiff's injury, and distinguished the defendants' cited precedents.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 23-2.2(a)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyConcrete FormworkBracing RequirementsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01726 [192 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2021

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

The plaintiff, Frank Palermo, was injured while assisting a coworker in carrying a large wood form on a construction site. While the plaintiff rested his end of the form on vertical piping, his coworker unexpectedly lifted his side, causing the form to fall and strike the plaintiff's left foot. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, citing factual issues regarding whether the activity involved an elevation-related risk requiring the wood form to be secured under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, a factual question remained as to whether an appropriate safety device could have prevented the accident.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation-Related RiskSafety DeviceFalling ObjectCoworker ActionLiability DisputeAppellate ReviewFactual Issues
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 759 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