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
Dec 13, 1979

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

A claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding injuries sustained during employment. The claimant was injured by a falling heater, striking his head, right big toe, and leg, leading to subsequent ulceration, gangrene, and amputations of the toe and leg. Although initial medical reports only noted a head injury, later testimony from the claimant and medical experts, Dr. Grauer and Dr. Ahmad, established the link between the workplace accident and the toe and leg injuries. The Board found the injuries causally related. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the findings.

AmputationGangreneUlcerationToe injuryLeg injuryHead injuryWorkplace accidentCredibilitySubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. LAO 829404, LAO 815773
Regular
Jul 20, 2007

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous award of vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found no substantial evidence to support the applicant's claim that her diabetes, left leg amputation, or right toe amputation were industrially caused, despite the treating physician's opinion. The case was remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify industrial causation for the specific body parts claimed as injured.

Vocational RehabilitationIndustrial CausationDiabetesAmputationQMETreating DoctorCompromise and ReleaseThomas FindingContinuous TraumaLabor Code section 5908.5
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1985

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

In September 1980, the claimant's decedent injured his right great toe at work. He sought medical attention in September 1981 for a persistent infection, which was later diagnosed as malignant melanoma. Despite the amputation of his toe, the carcinoma metastasized, leading to his death in May 1982. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded death benefits, and the carrier appealed, citing lack of causal relationship and improper notice of injury. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the causal relationship and concluding that the employer had actual notice of the injury.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsMalignant MelanomaTraumaCausal RelationshipNotice of InjuryMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAggravationAmputation
References
5
Case No. 2016-08-1299
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

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

Regina Halmon, an employee of Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), filed a claim for medical benefits, alleging a left foot injury from a co-worker stepping on her toe on June 9, 2016. She asserted timely notice to her employer, which CSC denied. Ms. Halmon saw Dr. Nathan Coleman, a podiatrist, who noted no work-related injury in his initial records, with the alleged incident first appearing in September after a toe amputation. The Expedited Hearing addressed notice and causation, with the court finding Ms. Halmon failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate she was likely to prevail on the notice issue. Consequently, her claim for medical benefits against CSC was denied.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsNotice of InjuryCausationLeft Foot InjurySurgical AmputationPodiatristEmployer's Notice DutyEmployee Burden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

James A. Hughes sought Workmen's Compensation benefits for three accidental injuries sustained while working for Globe Company, Inc. The first injury (November 1965), involving thrombophlebitis, was covered by Maryland Casualty Company, which was later dismissed from liability. The second (January 1967), a frostbite injury necessitating toe amputation, and the third (October 1967), a stubbed toe, were covered by Reliance Insurance Co. and Planet Insurance Co. (collectively 'Planet'). The trial court found in favor of Hughes for the second and third injuries, awarding temporary total disability for each and a combined fifty percent permanent partial disability of the right leg. Globe Company and Planet appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the compensability of frostbite under Tennessee's Workmen's Compensation Law and confirming the 'last injurious exposure rule' for successive injuries, making the last carrier fully liable.

Workmen's CompensationFrostbitePermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilitySuccessive InjuriesInsurance Carrier LiabilityLast Injurious Exposure RuleAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionCausationMedical Expenses
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06228 [153 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Eugene Everett, a dishwasher, suffered a foot injury at work when a large pot fell on it, leading to the amputation of his toe and ultimately half of his left foot. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, which his employer, Sodexo, Inc., and its carrier opposed, asserting the injury was due to his diabetes and that he made misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the injury causally related and no misrepresentation, a decision affirmed by a Workers' Compensation Board panel and then by the full Board. The employer's appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, was dismissed. The court ruled that the right to appeal from the Board panel's decision terminated upon the issuance of the full Board's superseding decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsWorkplace InjuryAmputation ClaimCausation DisputeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAppeal DismissalSuperseding JudgmentJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Claimant suffered a lawn mowing accident in July 1994, resulting in the amputation of two toes and a permanent 50% loss of function in his right foot. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Board awarded him total and partial disability benefits, but these were suspended after he failed to appear for medical examinations. Claimant was later incarcerated on criminal charges, prompting a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge to close his case until his release, a decision affirmed by the Board. Claimant's subsequent request for reconsideration of the Board's decision was denied on April 5, 1999. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that the appeal was largely untimely regarding previous decisions and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationAmputationDisability BenefitsMedical ExaminationIncarcerationReconsiderationTimeliness of AppealAbuse of DiscretionStatutory Time PeriodNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

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

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Gerald Needle, a former employee of Ailing and Cory, Inc., sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The emotional distress claim was previously dismissed. Needle, who suffered from diabetes leading to toe amputations and permanent physical restrictions, argued that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his warehouse associate position. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting Needle was not a qualified individual with a disability and no suitable accommodation or vacant position existed. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ADA claim, finding Needle could not perform essential job functions and no reasonable accommodation was viable. The court also denied the defendant's counterclaim for COBRA benefits and dismissed it.

Disability discriminationADAEmployment lawSummary judgmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsCOBRA benefitsDismissal with prejudiceDiabetic complicationsAmputations
References
37
Case No. 535669
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2024

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

Claimant Eddy Irizarry appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits, which alleged injuries to his right great toe and foot from stepping on a nail in February 2021, ultimately leading to amputation. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially disallowed the claim, and the Board affirmed this, but neither provided specific findings of fact or conclusions of law. The Appellate Division found that the absence of these explicit findings precluded intelligent appellate review, making it impossible to ascertain whether the claim was denied due to disbelief of a work-related accident or insufficient medical evidence regarding causation. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to include appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsFoot InjuryToe AmputationCausation DisputeIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLack of Factual FindingsRemittalBoard Decision Reversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 172 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