Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 526722

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal

References

Case No. ADJ7354947

Regular

Sep 11, 2012

MATTHEW WOLLMAN vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that applicant Matthew Wollman sustained a work-related left knee injury as a police officer on June 7, 2010. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding applicant's testimony credible and corroborated by a co-worker regarding the injury during a pursuit. While the applicant did not seek immediate treatment, the WCJ's credibility findings and medical evidence, including an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion, supported the conclusion of an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The defendant's contentions that the injury was based on surmise and lacked substantial medical evidence were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SacramentoPolice OfficerDate of InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.AOE/COEsubstantial medical evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 05, 2007

Bradley v. US Airways, Inc.

Claimant sustained work-related injuries to her left foot in September 1999 and her back in December 2000, for which she received workers’ compensation benefits. She subsequently sought benefits for a consequential psychiatric injury, specifically depression, arguing it arose from her established physical injuries. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal link. The Board deemed the testimony of her treating psychiatrist, Joseph Young, to be overly speculative. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Young’s opinion on causation lacked a rational basis and was founded on mere surmise.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric InjuryDepressionCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonyExpert OpinionSpeculative EvidencePrior InjuriesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal

MATTHEW WOLLMAN vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SacramentoPolice OfficerDate of InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.AOE/COEsubstantial medical evidence

Bradley v. US Airways, Inc.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric InjuryDepressionCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonyExpert OpinionSpeculative EvidencePrior InjuriesAppellate ReviewBoard Decision