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
Jul 24, 2002

In re the Claim of Miller v. North Syracuse Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning overlapping workers' compensation awards. The claimant, a food services worker, filed two separate claims: one for occupational disease to her shoulders, leading to a schedule loss of use award, and another for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which resulted in a temporary total disability award for the period from December 13, 1999, to February 14, 2000. The State Insurance Fund argued that the schedule loss of use award should be suspended for this period to prevent an overlap. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling in favor of suspending the schedule award. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule award is not allocable to a specific period of disability and therefore does not overlap with a temporary total disability award covering a limited timeframe. The court distinguished this from cases involving permanent disability awards. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for recalculation of the claimant’s award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Total DisabilityOverlapping AwardsEarning CapacityOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewRecalculation of Award
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cruz v. City of New York Department of Children's Services

Claimant, injured in an automobile accident while working, received workers' compensation benefits and later settled a third-party action. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the self-insured employer was not entitled to offset the third-party settlement against a schedule loss of use (SLU) award, even for the portion initially designated as temporary total disability. The employer appealed, arguing the offset was permissible because the weekly award exceeded statutory thresholds for basic economic loss. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule loss of use award is not allocable to any specific period of disability and thus is not subject to offset under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 against first-party benefits, regardless of initial labeling or monthly rate.

Schedule Loss of Use Award OffsetThird-Party SettlementTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityBasic Economic LossNo-Fault LawInsurance LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Appellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Busick

This appeal arises from a jury verdict in a Workmen's Compensation case, where appellee John Busick was awarded judgment against Mid-Continent Casualty Company for total and permanent loss of use of his right arm. The appellant contested the definition of 'total loss of use' and argued that the jury's finding of permanent total loss was against the great weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the definition of 'total loss of use' to be substantially correct. However, it concluded that the jury's finding of permanent total loss of use was manifestly wrong and unjust, given that Busick returned to work, earned similar or higher wages, and performed his duties with almost as great efficiency as before, despite a partial impairment. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Workmen's CompensationTotal Loss of UseSpecific InjuryPermanent DisabilityJury VerdictEvidence SufficiencyAppellate ReviewReversalRemandArm Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Del Rio v. Contreras

Patricio Contreras sought lifetime workers' compensation benefits from the City of Del Rio following an on-the-job injury to his knees that resulted in a total knee replacement and anticipated future surgery, leading to permanent disability. The City challenged the lifetime benefits, asserting that the injury, loss of use of both legs, did not meet the statutory requirement of total loss of use of both feet at or above the ankles under the Workers’ Compensation Act. A jury found Contreras suffered a total and permanent loss of use of both legs at or above the ankle, and the trial court awarded lifetime benefits. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under a liberal construction of the Act, jury findings of total and permanent incapacity due to the loss of use of legs at or about the ankles under the "other loss" provision of section 11a qualify a claimant for lifetime benefits.

Workers' CompensationLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent DisabilityLoss of UseLegsKneesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grugan v. The Record

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left hand in 2007, leading to a dispute over whether she should receive a permanent partial disability classification or a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately issued a 15% schedule loss of use award, which the claimant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the determination. The court noted that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and her condition was stable, factors supporting a schedule loss of use award. Conflicting medical opinions from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner were resolved by the Board within its discretion.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMaximum Medical ImprovementConflicting Medical Opinions
References
3
Case No. ADJ6581535
Regular
Nov 15, 2017

Angel Mendez vs. Maple Dairy, Zenith Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Angel Mendez's petition for reconsideration. Mendez sought a finding of $100\%$ permanent disability, arguing total loss of use of his dominant right upper extremity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's prior award of $75\%$ permanent disability, finding no presumption of total disability for the loss of use of only one hand. The evidence did not support a finding of total loss of use of the upper extremity.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability ApportionmentVocational EvidenceDominant Upper ExtremityLoss of UsePresumption of Permanent Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4662(a)(2)Substantial EvidenceLeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Dairy Worker
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glover v. Texas General Indemnity Co.

James L. Glover, a truck driver, sued Texas General Indemnity Company for workers' compensation due to an occupational injury to his left ring finger. The injury, described by his treating physician, orthopedic surgeon, and physical therapist, involved tendons serving all four fingers and affected the musculature and nerves of his hand, leading to a jury finding of total and permanent loss of use of the left hand. The trial court awarded compensation based on this finding. The court of civil appeals modified the judgment, awarding compensation for loss of use of the fingers only, citing insufficient evidence for total hand loss. The Supreme Court, while finding some evidence for the total loss of use of the hand, affirmed the court of civil appeals' modified judgment, stating they lacked jurisdiction to review factual sufficiency and noting Glover's waiver of a new trial. Consequently, the application for writ of error was refused.

References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Glover

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in a worker's compensation claim where the plaintiff sustained a broken ring finger while working for Louisiana Pacific Corporation. A jury found the injury resulted in total and permanent loss of use of the ring finger and extended to other fingers and the left hand. The defendant appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the injury's extension beyond the ring finger and the total loss of use of the left hand, particularly considering the plaintiff's ability to secure and retain employment as a truck driver. The appellate court reversed the finding of total and permanent loss of use of the left hand but affirmed the findings that the injury affected the middle and little fingers.

Worker's CompensationFinger InjuryHand InjuryTotal Loss of UsePermanent DisabilityMedical TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawOccupational Injury
References
13
Case No. 10-93-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Subsequent Injury Fund of the State of Texas (Formerly the Second Injury Fund) v. Larry Milligan

The Subsequent Injury Fund appeals a judgment awarding Larry Milligan lifetime benefits for injuries sustained at work. Milligan suffered two ankle injuries in 1987 and a third in 1989, leading to the total loss of use of both feet. He sued the Fund for lifetime benefits after settling with the workers' compensation carrier. The jury found permanent, total loss of use of both feet. The Fund challenged its statutory liability for lifetime benefits and the court's refusal to submit a jury question on total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court affirmed, finding the first issue unpreserved and the second resolved by a statutory conclusive presumption of total and permanent incapacity for the loss of both feet.

Workers' Compensation LawSubsequent Injury FundLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityAnkle InjuriesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsConclusive PresumptionOccupational Injuries
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,152 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