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. SAC 256953, SAC 256954, SAC 256955
Regular

CAROL TORREZ vs. SUPERSHUTTLE, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE

This case involves cross-petitions for reconsideration concerning an applicant's workers' compensation claims for upper back/neck, low back, and upper extremity injuries sustained as an airport shuttle driver. The Appeals Board granted both applicant's and defendant's petitions, largely affirming the WCJ's findings but amending several clerical and factual errors. Key amendments include correcting defendant identification, clarifying stipulation regarding the low back injury, adjusting attorney fees and liens, and crediting EDD payments against temporary disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupershuttleClarendon National InsuranceCIGACalifornia Compensation Insurance Companyindustrial injuryupper backnecklow backcumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ1901810 (SAC 0362345) ADJ381755 (SAC 0362346)
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

RONALD WILLIAMS vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, adjusted by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it was untimely filed and not properly verified. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Judge. The underlying decisions found the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his low back, requiring further treatment but no permanent disability. A separate decision found an industrial injury to his right upper extremity (CRPS) and neck/upper back (myofascial pain syndrome), resulting in 75% permanent disability and entitlement to further medical treatment.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeMyofascial Pain SyndromeAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA Guides 5th EditionLabor Code section 4658(d)Permanent Disability IndemnityPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLack of VerificationJurisdictional Time Limit
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. 534955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Victor Martinez, a construction worker, was injured on November 11, 2020, when his right hand was caught between a cantilever pin and a concrete post. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, including injuries to his neck and back, in addition to his right upper extremity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim only for injuries to his right forearm and wrist, disallowing the neck and back claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this determination, amending the claim to include the neck and back injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the causal relationship of the neck and back injuries. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility and its factual findings.

Construction InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausality DeterminationNeck and Back InjuriesSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion CredibilityAppellate ReviewWork AccidentBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedist Testimony
References
8
Case No. ADJ2987812 (SJO 0262336) ADJ1100259 (SJO 0262338)
Regular
Sep 02, 2010

JANICE KELLEY vs. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case involves an applicant with a prior low back injury award who sustained a specific back injury in 2002 and cumulative injuries to her back and upper extremities through 2006. The WCJ awarded 75% permanent disability, including a 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d), finding the disabilities inseparable. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the disabilities were separable and the Ogilvie calculation was improperly applied. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding the medical evidence regarding apportionment and the basis for the disability rating insufficient. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentBensonOgilvieLabor Code Section 4658(d)Qualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Evidence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Neal v. Blue Circle Cement

The claimant, a laborer, suffered a compensable back injury in November 1998 and returned to work after eight months. In January 2002, he sustained another back injury. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that the January 2002 injury was an aggravation of the prior 1998 injury, assigned disability levels from January 2002 to April 2003, and found no compensable lost time thereafter. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence, including medical testimony and MRI comparisons, to support the Board’s determination regarding the aggravation of the injury and the disability levels. The court also upheld the Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical evidence and make credibility determinations, particularly in light of evidence that the claimant exaggerated his symptoms.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravation of InjuryDisability LevelsMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Fave v. St. Lawrence County

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in October 1992. Years later, in November 1996, he was diagnosed with sciatica and a herniated disc, leading to surgery in March 1997. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his back condition was causally related to the 1992 injury. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting medical evidence supporting the causal relationship from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner, despite the employer's consultant expressing doubts. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the employer's request for further record development due to untimeliness.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard DecisionAppealAffirmationTimelinessRecord Development
References
4
Case No. SBA 0083738, SBA 0084753
Regular
Dec 04, 2007

MAGDALENA PINEDA vs. INAMED CORPORATION aka MCGHAN MEDICAL, CIGA by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, SAFECO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a previous award. The applicant had sought reconsideration of findings that she sustained industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities, neck musculature, shoulders, and upper back, but not to her psyche or cervical spine. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendations, denying the petition and noting a potential clerical error in the award regarding medical treatment for the cervical spine and psyche.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMagdalena PinedaInamed CorporationMcGhan MedicalCIGACambridge Integrated ServicesSafecobilateral upper extremitiesneck musculatureshoulders
References
0
Case No. ADJ11130965
Regular
Jan 15, 2020

SUSAN ADAMS vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to her neck, upper extremities, or back. This decision relied heavily on the WCJ's credibility determination of the applicant. While a PQME opined that work activities likely caused a lumbar spine cumulative trauma, the Board found this opinion lacked substantiality. The PQME's report failed to adequately explain how work activities accelerated or aggravated the applicant's numerous pre-existing back conditions and prior injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCumulative TraumaCredibility DeterminationQualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedicsLumbar SpinePreexisting ConditionIndustrial InjurySubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,407 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