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?

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

A billing clerk (claimant) suffered a fall and injury to her left arm and shoulder at work on April 10, 1978. Despite a history of high blood pressure and dizzy spells at home, the claimant denied such incidents at work, and a co-worker could not explain the fall. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the accident compensable, relying on the statutory presumption of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21. The appeal contended the fall was idiopathic and thus the presumption should not apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concurring that no substantial evidence rebutted the statutory presumption, as the injury occurred within the course of employment.

Workers' CompensationIdiopathic FallStatutory PresumptionCourse of EmploymentInjuryBilling ClerkHigh Blood PressureDizzy SpellsAppealCompensability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

A police officer employed by the City of Knoxville suffered a stroke and sought workers' compensation benefits, relying on a statutory presumption for law enforcement officers with hypertension or heart disease. The trial court denied coverage, finding the presumption rebutted. On appeal, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reviewed the medical expert testimony from both treating physicians and cardiologists. The panel concluded that the defendant, City of Knoxville, failed to overcome the statutory presumption with competent medical evidence. Consequently, the panel reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the plaintiff's disability and benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationStrokeHypertensionPolice OfficerStatutory PresumptionMedical Expert TestimonyCausationReversalRemandTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Arthur M. Bohanan, a retired Knoxville police officer, sought workers' compensation benefits for hypertension, alleging it was caused by his employment and relying on a statutory presumption for law enforcement officers. The City of Knoxville, the employer, presented medical evidence through Dr. Roseman, who testified that Bohanan's hypertension was due to factors like weight gain and a sedentary lifestyle, effectively rebutting the statutory presumption. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Bohanan, awarding permanent partial disability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption and Bohanan failed to prove a job-related causal connection for his hypertension.

Workers' CompensationHypertensionLaw EnforcementStatutory PresumptionCausationMedical EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityRebuttalPolice OfficerTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. W2018-01353-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2020

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves Pamela Pryor's appeal against the City of Memphis' denial of On-the-Job-Injury (OJI) benefits after her firefighter husband's death. The City denied the claim due to the absence of an autopsy report, a requirement of its OJI policy. The trial court reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding the City's policy conflicted with Tennessee Code Annotated section 7-51-201, which establishes a statutory presumption for firefighters' deaths caused by hypertension or heart disease occurring in the line of duty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, deeming the City's autopsy requirement null and void for creating an additional burden on the claimant and usurping the statutory presumption. The case has been remanded to the ALJ for a new hearing applying the statutory burden-shifting analysis without the invalidated policy.

OJI benefitsFirefighter presumptionStatutory conflictAutopsy requirementBurden of proofAdministrative Law JudgeChancery CourtAppellate reviewRemedial statutesHypertension
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Charles Stone, a McMinnville police officer, suffered a heart attack and sought workers' compensation benefits, relying on a statutory presumption that heart disease for law enforcement officers is an employment-related injury. The City of McMinnville challenged this, presenting medical evidence from three physicians who attributed Stone's heart attack to lifestyle factors such as high cholesterol, hypertension, and smoking, rather than job stress. While Stone initially established a prima facie case with the statutory presumption, the court found that the competent medical evidence successfully rebutted this presumption. Consequently, Stone failed to prove a direct causal link between his employment and his heart attack, as no specific physical or emotional event precipitated the condition. Therefore, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel's decision, which reversed the trial court's award of benefits and dismissed the suit, was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackPolice OfficerCausationStatutory PresumptionRebuttalMedical EvidenceLifestyle FactorsEmployment-related InjuryTennessee Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on May 20, 1981. The central issue is whether the appellants successfully overcame the statutory presumption (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 21, subd 4) that the injured employee’s death did not result solely from intoxication while on duty. The Board, relying on an autopsy report and Trooper O’Brien's testimony, found that the carrier failed to overcome this presumption, concluding that other factors contributed significantly to the employee's demise. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the strong statutory presumption is rebutted only when evidence unequivocally shows intoxication as the sole cause, a heavy burden for the appellants. Despite a high alcohol concentration in the decedent's body, the court noted contributing factors like the decedent working all day, consuming only four drinks, acting normally before driving, and the accident occurring on a dark, curving road. Thus, the employer and carrier failed to establish intoxication as the exclusive cause of death.

Intoxication defenseWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory presumptionBurden of proofDeath benefits claimAppellate reviewAccident causationSole causeEvidence insufficiency
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02509 [182 AD3d 944]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

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

The Women's Project and Productions, Inc. (WPP), a non-profit theater company, appealed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found WPP liable for additional tax contributions on remuneration paid to certain individuals, including artistic advisors and directors, whom WPP had treated as independent contractors. The Department of Labor, however, considered these individuals employees. The Board modified an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that WPP's arguments were unpersuasive and that the Board rationally concluded WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment. Consequently, the additional tax contributions imposed upon WPP were upheld.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPerforming ArtsStatutory PresumptionLabor LawTax ContributionsAppeal BoardRebuttalArtistic Services
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case interprets Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-5-113(a), which establishes a rebuttable presumption for the necessity and reasonableness of medical bills totaling $4,000 or less, if itemized and attached to a complaint. The Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that this presumption applies to the total amount of bills itemized and attached, not the total medical expenses incurred. However, the court ruled that plaintiffs cannot invoke this presumption if they have redacted medical bills to fall within the $4,000 limit, as redacted documents are not considered true "copies" of original bills. Consequently, the plaintiffs, Helen and Lekesa Borner, who had altered Dr. Heilman's medical bills, were deemed ineligible for the statutory presumption. The Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Medical Bill PresumptionStatutory InterpretationEvidence RulesPersonal Injury LawAutomobile AccidentPleading RequirementsRedaction of DocumentsBurden of ProofTennessee Supreme CourtAppellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. ADJ9750276
Regular
Aug 21, 2017

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award finding Sandra Kimber's death compensable under the police officer pneumonia presumption. The Board found the decedent's cause of death, acute bronchiotracheopneumonitis, is medically distinct from pneumonia and therefore not covered by the statutory presumption. The case was returned for further proceedings to determine if the injury is compensable absent the presumption and to establish dependency for death benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSandra Kimber (Deceased)City of Los Angelesself-insuredADJ9750276Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurydeath benefitLabor Code section 3212
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,056 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