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 02, 1977

Beckley v. Transworld Airlines

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on March 3, 1977, and subsequently amended on December 2, 1977. The Board had affirmed a referee’s decision which disallowed a claim for compensation benefits. The disallowance was based on the finding that the claimant’s ulcerative colitis was not causally related to their occupation as an inflight service supervisor. The Board’s determination relied on a medical report by Dr. Jacobi and testimony from Ms. Wolf, concluding that the ailment was not an inherent hazard of the occupation. The appellate court reviewed the entire record and found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, thus affirming it without costs.

Ulcerative ColitisCausationOccupational IllnessMedical Expert TestimonyInflight Service SupervisorBenefit DisallowanceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMedical Report FindingsSufficiency of Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1986

Claim of MacMullan v. Associated Press

William Von Stein appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed May 14, 1986, which denied his application to reopen Philip MacMullan’s previously closed compensation case. The Board determined that any new claim for compensation related to MacMullan's ulcer was barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. This appeal originated from a medical malpractice action in Supreme Court, where Von Stein, a coemployee and doctor, was accused of failing to inform MacMullan of an ulcer discovered during an employer-conducted medical examination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Von Stein lacked standing to reopen MacMullan’s case and that the requested declaratory ruling on the ulcer's compensability fell outside the Board's authority. Consequently, the court concluded that the judicial forum, not the Workers’ Compensation Board, was the appropriate venue for resolving the dispute concerning MacMullan's injury.

Workers' Compensation Law § 28Statute of LimitationsReopening Closed CaseMedical MalpracticeStanding to SueBoard JurisdictionDeclaratory RulingUlcer ConditionAngina PectorisCoemployee Immunity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Burk

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appealed a judgment finding that Roy Burk's work-related back injury caused his polyneuropathy and foot ulceration. Burk, injured in 1998, developed complications including cauda equina syndrome, leading to conditions like nerve root impairment, polyneuropathy, and foot ulcerations, which the insurer disputed were work-related, suggesting diabetes as the cause. The trial court, reviewing a Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision, ruled that the work injury extended to Burk's polyneuropathy and foot ulcerations, but not his diabetes. Liberty Mutual contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient, citing a lack of medical expert testimony from Burk and relying on their expert's opinion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence, including conflicting expert testimony and the judicial notice of the prior appeals panel decision, supported the causal link between Burk's work injury and his conditions.

Judicial ReviewPolyneuropathyFoot UlcerationCauda Equina SyndromeBack InjurySufficiency of EvidenceCausationMedical Expert TestimonyTexas Labor CodeAppeals Panel Decision
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Corp. of Hannover v. Polk

Judy Polk and Marcia Moore sued Insurance Corporation of Hannover for breach of an equine-livestock mortality insurance policy, bad faith, and Texas Insurance Code violations after their horse, Smart Score, died from colitis. Hannover denied the $40,000 claim, arguing the death was not covered under the policy's 30-day extension clause because the colitis was not directly caused by prior surgery for a knee fracture. The trial court found in favor of Polk and Moore, awarding them actual and extra-contractual damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's findings that Hannover breached the contract and violated the Insurance Code by failing to reasonably investigate and settle the claim. However, the appellate court modified the amount of additional damages, reducing the total award to three times the actual damages, as per the Texas Insurance Code.

Insurance Policy BreachEquine Mortality InsuranceBad Faith ClaimTexas Insurance Code ViolationsUnfair Settlement PracticesJury Trial DenialAbuse of Discretion StandardCausation of IllnessVeterinary Medical OpinionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2-08-444-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Roy Burk

Roy Burk sustained a work-related back injury in 1998, which necessitated multiple surgeries, including one for cauda equina syndrome. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, who accepted the initial injury, later contested the extent of Burk's injury, specifically arguing that his work injury did not cause his polyneuropathy and foot ulceration. Following a Contested Case Hearing and an affirmation by an appeals panel in Burk's favor, Liberty Mutual initiated judicial review. The trial court subsequently ruled that Burk's work-related injury did indeed extend to his polyneuropathy and foot ulcerations. Liberty Mutual appealed this decision, citing legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings, highlighting inconsistencies in the expert testimony presented by Liberty Mutual.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceCausationPolyneuropathyFoot UlcerationBack InjuryCauda Equina SyndromeMedical Expert TestimonyTexas Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1954

Lumbermen's Lloyds v. Loper

This Supreme Court opinion addresses a workmen's compensation case stemming from a disputed injury claim. The claimant, Loper, alleged a timber blow caused a fatal duodenal ulcer perforation while working at a sawmill. Despite a jury verdict against the claimant, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the decision due to improper arguments by the defendant's counsel. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment, affirming the original trial court's verdict. The Court concluded that, based on the overwhelming evidence that no accident occurred, the improper arguments did not likely sway the jury's decision.

Workmen's CompensationImproper ArgumentJury VerdictMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyCausationAppellate ReviewTrial Court AffirmationPre-existing ConditionsDuodenal Ulcer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1979

In re the Claim of D'Amore v. Town of Hempstead

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardno v. State

The petitioner, a police officer for the Port Authority, sought World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits after being diagnosed with colitis, which he attributed to his work at the WTC site on 9/11 and subsequent extended shifts at JFK. The Comptroller denied the application, finding that while the WTC presumption applied, it was rebutted by competent evidence, and the petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between his disability and his work at the WTC site. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, ruling that the work performed at JFK did not fall within the scope of the World Trade Center site presumption and that sufficient medical evidence existed to rebut the presumption for the WTC site work, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

World Trade Center benefitsaccidental disability retirementulcerative colitiscausationstatutory presumptionpolice officerCPLR article 78 proceedingmedical evidencestress-related illness9/11 workers
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franklin v. Apfel

Roger R. Franklin appealed the denial of social security disability benefits by Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel. Franklin claimed disability since January 1993 due to back problems, depression, anxiety, and stomach ulcers. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. District Judge Curtin reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ erred by downplaying non-exertional impairments and by relying on unreliable vocational expert testimony regarding job availability. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, the defendant's denied, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ DecisionRemandResidual Functional CapacityNon-Exertional ImpairmentsVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceMedical-Vocational GuidelinesMental Impairment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Dallas County

Brent Lawson, a paraplegic inmate, sued Dallas County, Sheriff Jim Bowles, and Chief Medical Officer James Farris under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Despite explicit medical orders and the jail's awareness of his condition, Lawson was denied essential equipment, assistance, and proper hygiene, leading to the rapid development of severe, life-threatening decubitus ulcers. He underwent multiple surgeries and extensive hospitalizations. The court found the defendants liable for cruel and unusual punishment due to systemic and gross deficiencies in their medical care policies, awarding Lawson $250,000 for past and future pain and suffering and mental anguish.

Prisoner rightsDeliberate indifferenceMedical negligenceDecubitus ulcersParaplegiaEighth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Jail conditionsDisability rightsCorrectional healthcare
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 18 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