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

Claim of Sheeley v. Sheeley Septic Service

In 1994, a claimant sustained an injury while working for Sheeley Septic Service and received workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant later sought reduced or lost wage benefits in 2005, arguing that their average weekly wage should include concurrent employment with Thompson Sanitation Corporation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board both determined that the concurrent employment did not constitute covered employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6), as the claimant, being a sole owner and officer of Thompson Sanitation Corporation, had elected to be excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, as evidence supported the finding that the claimant had made such an exclusion election, thereby removing their work for Thompson from the scope of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageConcurrent EmploymentExecutive Officer ExclusionStock OwnershipInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Xerox Corp.

Claimant sustained compensable injuries across three incidents in 1984, 1987, and 1988 while employed by Xerox Corporation and Monroe County Septic Service, leading to him ceasing work in 1989. After being classified with a permanent partial disability, he sought classification as totally industrially disabled in 2005, which the Workers’ Compensation Board denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the resolution of conflicting medical evidence is within the Board's province. The court found substantial evidence, including a physician's report on work restrictions and a vocational counselor's testimony, supported the finding that the claimant could still be gainfully employed, especially given his failure to provide evidence of a job search for suitable employment.

Total Industrial DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational RehabilitationGainful EmploymentWork RestrictionsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardClaimant Appeal
References
8
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2000

Claim of Kaufman v. Aquabug International Corp.

Claimant's husband, Bernard Kaufman, suffered a compensable myocardial infarction in 1983 and was classified as permanently, totally disabled. Following his death in 1992, claimant sought compensation, alleging a causal relationship between his death and the prior injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, crediting the employer's medical expert, Carl Friedman, who opined death was due to end-stage cancer, pneumonia, and septic shock, unrelated to the 1983 infarction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support their conclusion despite conflicting medical opinions presented by claimant's expert.

myocardial infarctioncausation of deathworkers' compensation benefitsmedical expert testimonyconflicting medical evidencesubstantial evidence reviewrenal transplant complicationssepsis pneumoniacardiac arrestpermanent total disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wightman v. Clinton Tractor & Implement Co.

A claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits after her husband, a mechanic, died from necrotizing fasciitis and septic shock, allegedly due to a work-related fall. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the death causally related to employment, a decision upheld by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing insufficient corroboration for the decedent's statements and improper application of the presumption of compensability for unwitnessed accidents. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate corroboration based on the claimant's observations and medical evidence, and concluding that the Board appropriately weighed conflicting medical opinions regarding the infection's cause.

Death BenefitsCausally Related EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentPresumption of CompensabilityMedical EvidenceNecrotizing FasciitisSeptic ShockAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaimant Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2000

Star Enterprise v. Marze

Windel B. Marze, a truck driver, was severely injured after falling on a beam at a Texaco truck stop owned by Star Enterprise in 1994 while attempting to use an intercom to weigh his truck. The fall necessitated knee surgery, which subsequently led to a severe postoperative infection. Despite multiple attempts to control the infection, it spread throughout his body, resulting in an above-the-knee amputation and ultimately causing his death from septic shock in 1997. His surviving family, Mary Ann Marze, Lori Ann Marze, and Scott Windel Marze, along with Pacific Employer’s Insurance, initiated a premises liability suit against Star Enterprise, later amending it to include a wrongful death claim. The jury found Star Enterprise negligent and awarded the Marzes over $1.6 million in damages, a judgment affirmed by the appellate court despite Star Enterprise's arguments regarding jury charge errors and insufficient evidence.

Premises LiabilityWrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligenceProximate CauseJury Charge ErrorEvidentiary ErrorMedical CausationPostoperative InfectionSeptic Shock
References
35
Case No. 2016-02-0033
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2017

Burleson, Gary v. Doyle's Tire Service, Inc.

Gary Burleson sought workers' compensation benefits for knee injuries and septic arthritis allegedly sustained during work. The central legal issues concerned whether his knee injuries and septic arthritis were compensable work-related incidents. The court, crediting the testimony of medical experts Drs. Whitman, Horton, and Smith over Dr. DeTroye, found that Mr. Burleson failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between his work activities and his claimed injuries or the subsequent septic arthritis. Consequently, the court denied his claim for all requested workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation ClaimKnee InjurySeptic ArthritisCausation DisputeMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of EvidenceACL TearPermanent ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementSocial Security Offset
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dwyer v. General Motors LLC

The plaintiff, James Dwyer, a thirty-year experienced automotive technician, was injured when a shock absorber manufactured by General Motors LLC allegedly exploded during repair, amputating a portion of his finger. Dwyer sued General Motors for product liability, alleging design and manufacturing defects. General Motors moved for summary judgment, claiming spoliation of evidence because Dwyer's experts cut open the shock absorber's exterior casing without their consent. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff's actions amounted to negligence, not bad faith, but imposed sanctions precluding the plaintiff's experts from testifying about the shock absorber's condition before it was opened and allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference.

Product liabilitySpoliation of evidenceSummary judgmentSanctionsNegligenceAdverse inferenceExpert testimonyShock absorberManufacturing defectDesign defect
References
18
Case No. PD-0974-15
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2015

Robinson, Olin Anthony

This legal brief concerns a petition for discretionary review filed by Olin Anthony Robinson with the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, challenging a decision by the Court of Appeals. Robinson, initially granted "shock probation" by the trial court in Jackson County, faced an appeal from the State of Texas which led to a remand for an evidentiary hearing. Despite the hearing, the trial court reaffirmed Robinson's shock probation, prompting another appeal from the State. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court's order, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Robinson's brief argues that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory interpretation, failed to address his contentions, and lacked the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction for a direct appeal of a shock probation order.

Shock ProbationContinuing JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStare DecisisSubject-Matter JurisdictionCourt of Criminal AppealsTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03458 [172 AD3d 424]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2019

Cutaia v. Board of Mgrs. of the Varick St. Condominium

The plaintiff, Michael Cutaia, sought partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim after falling from an unsecured ladder due to an electric shock while performing plumbing work. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The appellate court held that the lack of adequate safety devices, specifically an an unsecured ladder, constituted a proximate cause of the fall, regardless of the electric shock, distinguishing the case from precedents involving stable ladders. A dissenting opinion argued against strict liability, contending that without evidence of a defective ladder or that alternative safety devices would have prevented the specific injury caused by the electrical shock, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Labor LawLadder AccidentElectric Shock InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction Site SafetyProximate CausationGravity-Related RiskWorksite InjuryAppellate Division First DepartmentUnsecured Ladder
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 125 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