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

Wilkins v. Kellogg Co.

This workers' compensation case before the Tennessee Supreme Court addresses the calculation of temporary partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2). Employee Dorothy Wilkins sustained a shoulder injury while working for Kellogg Company and subsequently worked on light duty with reduced hours, but her hourly wage remained unchanged. The trial court awarded Wilkins temporary partial disability benefits based on her average weekly wage, leading to an award of $3,258.20. Kellogg appealed, arguing that the statute's specific language for temporary partial disability mandates a calculation based on the difference in hourly wages before and after the injury, not the average weekly wage. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory text for temporary partial disability benefits has a unique calculation method that does not incorporate the average weekly wage definition. Consequently, since Wilkins's hourly wage did not change, she was not entitled to any temporary partial disability benefits. The Court emphasized that a literal interpretation of the statute aligns with legislative intent and promotes beneficial light duty programs, which ultimately provided Wilkins with more compensation than statutory benefits would have.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAverage Weekly WageHourly RateLight Duty ProgramTennessee LawSupreme CourtEmployer Incentive
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Smith

The case concerns an appeal by an insurance company against a judgment awarded to Smith under the Workmen’s Compensation Law for personal injuries. Smith, an employee of Skelly Oil Company, sought compensation after being injured on April 21, 1932. The central issue revolved around the calculation of Smith's average weekly wage. The trial court submitted the case to the jury under a statutory subdivision for employees who haven't worked substantially a whole year, allowing for the use of other employees' wages. However, the appellate court found that Smith failed to establish that he was ineligible for compensation calculation based on his own earnings. Additionally, the court ruled that submitting the issue of average wages based on multiple witnesses reporting different daily wages was erroneous as it led to an arbitrary calculation. The judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings, suggesting that if the evidence remains consistent, compensation should be considered under a different statutory subdivision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageCompensation LawStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofJury InstructionsReversible ErrorRemandTexas LawOil Field Worker
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reasoner v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

This appellate decision addresses whether the Workers' Compensation Board correctly calculated the claimant's average weekly wage. The employer and carrier argued that due to the claimant's limited employment as an MVRSAB member, the compensation rate should be based on actual earnings, not the 200 multiple outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board determined that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) nor (2) was applicable, thus applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). It also found no evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited participation in the labor market, based on testimony of availability and continued business operation. The court affirmed the Board's calculation.

average weekly wageworkers' compensation lawcompensation rateemployment limitationlabor marketstatutory interpretationappellate reviewMVRSAB member
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This is an appeal concerning the calculation of worker's compensation benefits following an injury to the appellant's right leg on August 20, 1986. The jury found a total loss of use for a period, followed by a 75% permanent loss of use, with 50% attributable to a prior knee injury. The core legal question is whether the percentage of contribution from a prior injury should be applied to the average weekly wage rate before the basic compensation figure is calculated, or after. The court examines the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, specifically Article 8306, Sections 10-12, 29, and 12c. The appellant argued for a higher recovery by applying the prior injury contribution to the average weekly wage first. The court, however, affirmed the trial court's method, which calculates the basic wage figure first (66.66% of average weekly wage or statutory limit) and then applies the percentage of incapacity caused by the *current* injury, taking into account the prior injury's contribution.

Worker's CompensationBenefit CalculationSpecific InjuryPrior Injury ContributionAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTexas LawLeg InjuryIncapacity PercentageTrial Court Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fletcher v. Wegmans

Claimant sustained a work-related knee injury in November 2002. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage at $398.49 by applying Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) and (4), as the claimant did not work a standard five or six-day week. The employer appealed, arguing improper statutory application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly utilized Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) to determine annual average earnings and subsequently Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (4) to establish the average weekly wage.

Work-related injuryAverage weekly wage calculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Statutory interpretationKnee injuryBoard decision affirmedWage calculation methodsAppellate reviewEmployer appealWorkers' Compensation benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1997

Till v. Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc.

The claimant, a private preschool teacher, suffered a compensable injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1), asserting she worked “substantially the whole of the year” despite her 41-week annual employment. The employer contended this was irrational, arguing that predictable seasonal layoffs should be factored into the annual earnings calculation, preventing her from receiving benefits equivalent to a full-time, full-year employee. The court agreed, holding that the formula in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) was inapplicable when seasonal layoffs are a known incident of employment. Therefore, the average weekly wage should be calculated under subdivisions (3) and (4) of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14. The Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageSeasonal EmploymentRemittiturStatutory InterpretationSection 14Appellate DivisionWage CalculationEmployment DurationBoard Decision Reversal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of House v. International Talc Co.

Arthur House suffered a compensable occupational disease in 1973, resulting in permanent total disability and received workers' compensation benefits based on his 1973 average weekly wage. He died in 1995 from lung disease. His widow, the claimant, filed for death benefits, contending the benefits should be calculated based on the average weekly wage of a comparable employee for the year preceding his death (March 17, 1994, to March 17, 1995). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board, however, determined that death benefits should be calculated based on House's average weekly wage from the date of his original injury, April 5, 1973. This Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 2, 14, and 38 to establish that the date of the original injury or accident is the basis for computing both disability and death benefits, not the date of death.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationDate of DisablementAppellate DivisionTalcosisClaimant's Widow
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,917 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