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

Hawkins v. Center for Spinal Surgery

Demica Hawkins, a Black former Accounts Payable Coordinator, sued her employer, The Center for Spinal Surgery (CSS), alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA interference. The lawsuit stemmed from denied pay raises, disciplinary actions, and ultimately her termination while on pregnancy leave, which Hawkins claims was discriminatory and retaliatory. CSS filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, and Hawkins filed a partial motion for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part CSS's motion, dismissing Hawkins' pregnancy discrimination and certain retaliation claims. However, Hawkins' retaliatory discharge and FMLA interference claims related to her 2013 termination will proceed to trial due to genuine disputes of material fact regarding CSS's motivations.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationFMLA InterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTitle VIIPregnancy Discrimination ActMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkHonest Belief RulePretext
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cameron v. Carrier Air Conditioning Co.

On July 22, 1975, the claimant suffered work-related head and neck injuries but did not lose compensable time. He continued employment until March 1, 1978, when he opted for early retirement at age 62 and subsequently sought workers’ compensation benefits. A divided Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, concluding that the claimant voluntarily left the labor market and his disability post-March 1, 1978, was unrelated to the 1975 accident. The Board found that financial gain, not ill health, motivated his retirement, citing evidence of more favorable retirement benefits and his pre-recommendation announcement of retirement. Furthermore, a carrier’s examining physician's report attributed the disability to pre-existing spinal osteoarthritis diagnosed in 1973, a finding the claimant did not timely object to. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, without costs.

Voluntary retirementLabor market withdrawalPre-existing conditionSpinal osteoarthritisFinancial motivationWorkers' compensation benefitsDisability claimAppellate reviewCausation of disabilityMedical evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ2320623
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

SAMIR SOLOMON vs. TRI VALLEY BUICK, PONTIAC, GMC, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for an automobile salesman injured on April 14, 2001, resulting in spinal and psychiatric injuries. The WCJ awarded temporary disability through June 22, 2004, 52¼% permanent disability, and further medical treatment for the psyche, but not the spine, denying defendant credit for civil damages. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, arguing various evidentiary errors, particularly regarding the duration of temporary disability and the need for spinal treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of both petitions, affirming the WCJ's decision, though one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant's temporary disability claim and spinal treatment need further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryPsychiatric InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical TreatmentCivil DamagesReconsideration
References
1
Case No. 2016-01-0716
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2017

Lane, Thomas v. Cleveland Utilites

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Thomas Lane's claim for medical benefits related to a November 20, 2015 spinal injury at Cleveland Utilities. Mr. Lane, who also had a 2007 spinal injury at the same employer, sought treatment for his condition. The Court considered medical opinions from Drs. Folsom and Broadstone regarding the causation of his current spinal issues. Finding that the 2015 work injury aggravated a pre-existing condition, the Court concluded that Mr. Lane is likely to prevail at trial. Consequently, Cleveland Utilities and its carrier are ordered to process medical charges and authorize ongoing treatment by Dr. Paul Broadstone for the 2015 work injury.

Workers' CompensationSpinal InjuryMedical BenefitsAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionCausationExpedited HearingOrthopedic CareSciaticaRadiculopathyTennessee Law
References
9
Case No. 08-06-00170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2008

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Weldon W. Weeks

This case concerns an appeal by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company against a district court's judgment favoring workers' compensation claimant, Weldon Weeks. The core dispute revolved around the legal sufficiency of evidence for Weeks' impairment rating and maximum medical improvement (MMI) date, following an on-the-job spinal injury and subsequent fusion surgery. The district court had adopted a 25 percent impairment rating and April 17, 2002 MMI date, based on Dr. Chapman's report, which considered the spinal fusion surgery in violation of AMA Guides for impairment ratings. The Court of Appeals, affirming that surgery is not a permissible factor under the AMA Guides' Injury Model, found Dr. Chapman's reliance on the spinal fusion legally insufficient. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Fireman’s Fund, effectively upholding the Division's original decision of a 10 percent impairment rating and January 28, 2002 MMI date.

Impairment RatingMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Spinal Fusion SurgeryAMA GuidesLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentDesignated DoctorTexas Labor CodeDiagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE)
References
13
Case No. ADJ4480206 (POM 0274117)
Regular
Sep 23, 2008

JESUS MORALES vs. EXCEL CABINETS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the industrial injury includes the applicant's psyche, as stipulated, and requires related medical treatment. Defendant waived its right to object to the recommended spinal surgery due to failure to timely object per Labor Code Section 4062(b). The Board awarded updated diagnostic workup and the recommended spinal surgery, while affirming the need for further development on temporary disability and average weekly earnings.

WCABReconsiderationFindings and AwardSpinal SurgeryLabor Code Section 4062(b)Second Opinion ReportTreating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryPsycheTemporary Disability
References
4
Case No. ADJ4577451 (WCK 0063127) ADJ336675 (WCK 0063128)
Regular
Sep 10, 2013

EDUARDO GUERRA vs. POMEROY CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's award of total temporary disability and future medical treatment, including spinal surgery. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because the record regarding the necessity of spinal surgery was not fully developed. Specifically, Dr. Harf's second opinion report was incomplete due to unobtained diagnostic tests, preventing a definitive recommendation on surgery. The case is returned to the trial level to further develop the medical evidence on the surgery issue and other deferred matters.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnitySpinal SurgerySecond Opinion PhysicianUtilization ReviewPenaltiesDiscoveryDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
6
Case No. ADJ3388364 (VNO 0526713) ADJ2633182 (VNO 0342427)
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

RICHARD FROMKNECHT vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying him benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The applicant claimed a pre-existing disability from a 1996 spinal injury caused further permanent disability with a subsequent 1998 spinal injury. However, both injuries became permanent and stationary concurrently, meaning there was no distinct pre-existing ratable disability at the time of the second injury. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code section 4751, and his petition for reconsideration was denied.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderStipulations with Requests for AwardsAgreed Medical Evaluatorapportionmentpermanent and stationarypreexisting disabilityindustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ288083 (RDG 0128539)
Regular
Jun 01, 2010

JACOB VERVALIN vs. MISSION UNIFORM & LINEN, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Appeals Board rescinded the original decision, finding that the WCJ erred in admitting a supplemental AME report and authorizing spinal surgery based on it. The Board determined that the proper procedure under Labor Code sections 4610 and 4062 for disputing spinal surgery recommendations was not followed. Specifically, the medical opinions from Dr. Jones and Dr. Pappas were found to be based on inadequate reviews of the applicant's medical records, necessitating further development of the record. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level for additional proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpinal SurgeryAgreed Medical Examination (AME)Utilization Review (UR)Labor Code Section 4610Labor Code Section 4062Second Opinion Report
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 316 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