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. ADJ3705124 (VNO 0496493)
Regular
Jul 09, 2015

Dusty Glenn Garman vs. California Department of Corrections, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility; Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

The Appeals Board reversed a WCJ's decision, finding that applicant Dusty Glenn Garman had preexisting permanent disability or impairment prior to his industrial injury. This finding was based on substantial medical evidence, including deposition testimony from Dr. Markovitz and cardiac catheterization lab results, indicating significant coronary artery stenosis. Consequently, the Board determined that the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIF) is liable for benefits as the applicant met the statutory thresholds for such liability.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPreexisting permanent disabilityRetroactive prophylactic work restrictionCoronary artery diseaseApportionmentHeart troubleLabor Code § 4751Labor Code § 3212.2Medical evidenceStenosis
References
10
Case No. ADJ1926394 (POM 0267363)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

Francisco Costa vs. Ralph's Grocery Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a $100\%$ permanent disability award to Francisco Costa. Defendant Ralph's Grocery Company argued that $20\%$ of the disability should be apportioned to Costa's pre-existing congenital spinal stenosis, citing medical opinions. The Board found that the medical record justified apportionment but lacked sufficient detail on the basis for the physicians' opinions. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record regarding apportionment.

WCABRalph's Grocery CompanyFrancisco Costapermanent disabilityapportionmentcongenital spinal stenosiscauda equina syndromedecompression surgeryQMEsubstantial medical evidence
References
3
Case No. SJO 0227228
Regular
Nov 13, 2007

CURTIS CARUSI vs. MARKETSHARE, INC., ACE/USA

This case concerns the apportionment of permanent disability for an applicant with a cumulative trauma injury to his neck and upper extremities. The Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) determined that 60% of the applicant's permanent disability was due to non-industrial spinal stenosis and 40% was work-related. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, finding the AME's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence for apportionment. The WCAB rescinded the prior award and returned the case for a new award reflecting the AME's apportionment.

WCABMarketshare Inc.Curtis CarusiACE/USAESISSJO 0227228Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial cumulative traumaNeck injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ1926394
Regular
Dec 08, 2010

FRANCISCO COSTA vs. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the award to include future medical treatment. However, they affirmed the judge's finding of 80% permanent disability, which included a 20% apportionment to the applicant's pre-existing congenital spinal stenosis. The applicant argued against apportionment, but the Board found that medical evidence supported the conclusion that the pre-existing condition aggravated the industrial injury and led to more severe permanent disability. The Board clarified that "lighting up" a dormant condition is no longer a bar to apportionment under current law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentCongenital Spinal StenosisCauda Equina SyndromeLower Back InjuryUrologic System InjuryGI Tract Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cameron v. Chalet

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant's injury sustained on April 22, 2000, had resolved, and her ongoing disability was a result of pre-existing extensive degenerative changes, scoliosis, and spinal stenosis throughout her spine. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination. It noted that the resolution of factual discrepancies and conflicting medical opinions falls within the Board's jurisdiction, despite some evidence potentially supporting an opposite conclusion. The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

AppealSubstantial EvidencePreexisting ConditionDegenerative ChangesScoliosisSpinal StenosisMedical OpinionsFactual DiscrepanciesCausationDisability Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupationally related disease contributed to the decedent's death. The decedent had bronchitis, an occupational disease, and also aortic stenosis, which caused his death. The key issue was whether the bronchitis contributed to his death by preventing cardiac surgery that would have prolonged his life. Expert medical testimony indicated that the bronchitis made him ineligible for the necessary aortic valve replacement surgery. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the bronchitis prevented life-prolonging surgery and affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBronchitisAortic StenosisMedical TestimonyCausationSurgical ContraindicationLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Richard Graham, a nurse with Tourette's syndrome and spinal stenosis, sued the New York State Office of Mental Health and others for disability discrimination and retaliation after his probationary employment was terminated. Graham alleged refusal of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities during a job transfer and retaliation for requesting accommodations. The defendants argued that Graham failed to cooperate in the interactive accommodation process and was legitimately terminated for falsifying his employment application regarding prior state employment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no refusal of reasonable accommodation and that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProbationary EmploymentFalsification of Employment ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LeaveInteractive ProcessHuman Rights Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Castillo v. Bank of Nova Scotia

Claimant, a clerk, was injured when she became dizzy and fell while performing her regular duties, which included delivering documents, despite her treating physician's restrictions for 'desk work only' due to mitral valve stenosis. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the fall was solely due to the preexisting condition, rejecting the claimant's testimony of slipping. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board disagreed, ruling that the performance of contraindicated duties exacerbated her preexisting condition. The employer and carrier appealed, contending a lack of substantial evidence, but the Board's decision was affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that claimant's duties acted upon her preexisting condition, leading to the injury.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentPreexisting ConditionMitral Valve StenosisValvuloplasty ProcedureTreating Physician RestrictionsEmployer ContraventionDizziness and FallSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Walton v. Lin-Dot

Claimant, a plumber, developed cervical stenosis while working for Lin-Dot in March 2003 and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The employer's workers' compensation carrier sought to apportion responsibility for the claim among the claimant's prior employers under Workers' Compensation Law § 44. However, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied this request, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed that decision. The Board found no objective medical proof that the occupational disease was contracted during prior employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the claimant contracted the disease while employed by Lin-Dot and that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational DiseaseApportionmentPrior EmploymentCervical StenosisWorkers' Compensation LawMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityCarrier Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Satalino v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket

This decision affirms the Workers' Compensation Board's determination that the claimant failed to establish a recognizable link between his occupational disease and employment. The claimant, diagnosed with disc herniation, arthritis, spondylolisthesis, and stenosis, presented testimony from two neurological surgeons. Dr. Stephen Burstein could not definitively link the conditions to employment, noting potential causes like chronic degeneration or age. Dr. Artem Vaynman, while performing surgeries, opined that heavy lifting accelerated degeneration but also acknowledged an initial view of no employment relation and a lack of scientific evidence for repetitive lifting causing spinal injury. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's conclusion, emphasizing the requirement for a probable and rationally based causal relationship.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionDisc HerniationArthritisSpondylolisthesisStenosisHeavy LiftingDegenerative Condition
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14 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