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

Depczynski v. Adsco/Farrar & Trefts

This case addresses a workers' compensation claim for occupational hearing loss, focusing on the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb concerning the 90-day limitations period. The central question is whether 'knowledge' to trigger this period requires a formal medical diagnosis or the claimant's admitted awareness of the injury and its work-related cause is sufficient. The claimant, employed by Farrar & Trefts (later Adsco Manufacturing Corp.), experienced significant noise exposure and recognized his hearing loss and its occupational link in 1980. However, he did not receive a medical diagnosis until January 1991, having filed his claim in December 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board dismissed the claim as untimely, finding the claimant had knowledge in 1980, but the Appellate Division reversed, requiring a medical diagnosis for 'knowledge.' The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that the claimant's admitted awareness of his injury and its cause in 1980 initiated the limitations period, irrespective of a formal medical diagnosis. Consequently, the court deemed the claim, filed over two years from the disablement date, as untimely and dismissed it.

Occupational hearing lossWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsDelayed discovery ruleMedical diagnosis requirementCausation awarenessEmployer liabilityInsurance carrierJudicial interpretationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
12
Case No. ADJ10243412
Regular
Jun 10, 2019

DEBRA LUX vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

This case involves an injured firefighter seeking workers' compensation for a right knee injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of a finding of 17% permanent disability, arguing the administrative law judge erred by combining range of motion and diagnosis-based impairments, and by not apportioning the diagnosis-based impairment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the medical evaluator adequately explained the departure from standard AMA Guides methodology for rating the combined impairments. The Board also affirmed no apportionment of the diagnosis-based impairment as no substantial evidence showed non-industrial factors contributed to the need for surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPermissibly Self-InsuredAdministered by CORVELFirefighterIndustrial InjuryRight KneePermanent DisabilityWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Case No. 5:00-CV-1055 (FJS)(DEP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2002

Daigle v. West

Plaintiff Roger G. Daigle initiated a consolidated action against Togo West, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other VA Hospital employees, alleging employment discrimination and sexual harassment. The core of the dispute revolved around a settlement agreement stemming from an earlier EEO complaint, which Daigle claimed was breached by the VA Hospital through subsequent acts of discrimination and retaliation, including being forced to undergo medical exams and a wrongful diagnosis. The court addressed the exhaustion of administrative remedies, determining that it lacked jurisdiction over claims preceding July 1995, except for allegations related to Dr. Ispahani's diagnosis. While the court affirmed the enforceability of the settlement agreement, it denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the July 1995 claims and Dr. Ispahani's diagnosis, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether these actions constituted a breach of the agreement.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractAdministrative RemediesEEOCSummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionVA Hospital
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Hood County

Emma Anderson, a former cook at Hood County Jail, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hood County in her workers' compensation case. Anderson claimed to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after witnessing a murder at work in 1991, with symptoms emerging in 1993 and a diagnosis in 1994. The core of her appeal concerned whether she timely filed her notice of injury and claim, and if good cause existed for any delay. The trial court's summary judgment was affirmed on appeal, with the court ruling that Anderson failed to timely file her notice of injury because she linked her symptoms to the work incident well before her official diagnosis, thus precluding a finding of good cause for the delay.

Summary JudgmentTimeliness of NoticeWorkers' Compensation ActPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Good Cause ExceptionOccupational Disease DistinctionMental Trauma InjuryAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeWitnessed Murder
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of White v. Tougher Industries

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the timely filing of a claim for occupational hearing loss. The claimant, a sheet metal worker, filed a claim in December 1994, alleging work-related hearing loss first noticed in 1989. The Board determined the claim was timely filed under Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, finding the claimant only gained knowledge of the work-relatedness after a medical diagnosis in January 1995. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the claimant's earlier suspicions were insufficient to trigger the 90-day filing period. The court concluded that the record supported the Board's finding that the requisite knowledge was acquired upon medical diagnosis.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational DiseaseHearing LossTimeliness of ClaimKnowledge RequirementMedical DiagnosisAppellate ReviewSection 49-bbBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. v. Emkes

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a class-action challenge against Tennessee officials regarding the TennCare managed care program's compliance with early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT) services for children. The lawsuit, initiated in 1998, operated under a Consent Decree. The State filed a motion to vacate the Decree, arguing substantial compliance. After an evidentiary hearing and review of extensive evidence, the Court found that the State has achieved substantial compliance with the Consent Decree's requirements concerning outreach, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of EPSDT services. Consequently, the Court granted the State's motion to vacate the Consent Decree, dissolved all injunctive relief, and dismissed the case, while retaining jurisdiction for fee applications and contempt citations.

TennCareMedicaid ActEPSDT ProgramConsent Decree VacatedSubstantial ComplianceChild HealthcareManaged Care OrganizationsMedical ScreeningDiagnosis and TreatmentOutreach Efforts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sawyer

Dale R., an involuntarily committed patient at Central New York Psychiatric Center, diagnosed as a pedophile, moved for the appointment of either an independent or consulting psychiatric expert for his examination in a retention hearing. The underlying proceeding was initiated by Donald A. Sawyer for involuntary retention. The court denied the request for an independent expert, citing concerns about judicial neutrality in a controversial medical field (pedophilia diagnosis). However, the court granted the appointment of a consulting psychiatric expert, deeming it necessary to protect the respondent's due process liberty interests, as significant issues regarding diagnosis and prognosis were raised. The decision emphasized the court's discretion in appointing experts under Judiciary Law § 35 (4) and the need for both sides to present proof in open court.

involuntary civil commitmentpsychiatric expertdue processMental Hygiene LawCorrection Lawpedophilia diagnosisexpert testimonyjudicial discretionliberty interestsmental illness
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2001

Claim of Muehl v. Clinton's Ditch Cooperative

The claimant, a maintenance mechanic, sustained work-related back, ankle, and shoulder injuries in 1996 and 1998 while employed at Clinton’s Ditch Cooperative. The employer appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision awarding benefits, arguing insufficient medical evidence and attributing the claimant's total disability to a non-work-related Parkinson's disease diagnosis from September 1998. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence from Dr. Stephen Robinson and Dr. Saad Sobhy supported the work-relatedness and permanent disability of the injuries. Both physicians were aware of the Parkinson’s diagnosis but confirmed the work-related disability. The court concluded that conflicting independent medical examiner opinions merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityBack InjuryAnkle SprainShoulder ImpingementWork-Related AccidentMedical EvidenceCredibility IssueParkinson's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferrell v. Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Ferrell, an employee of APAC-Tennessee, Inc., sought workers' compensation benefits for hearing loss, alleging it stemmed from prolonged exposure to loud noise at work. The employer argued the condition was congenital. The trial court initially found the claim barred by the statute of limitations and, on merits, concluded the injury was not work-related. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the statute of limitations ruling, finding Ferrell had exercised reasonable diligence. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal on the merits, determining that the medical evidence, despite a recent work-related diagnosis, did not outweigh a long-standing contrary diagnosis. Additionally, the Court addressed procedural irregularities in the trial court's appointment of a Clerk and Master as a de facto judge but upheld the validity of the proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHearing LossStatute of LimitationsCausationMedical EvidenceDe Facto JudgeJudicial ProcedureTennessee LawGradual InjuryPreexisting Condition
References
13
Case No. 2015-02-0057
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

Gilbert, Michael v. Pike Electric, LLC

Michael Gilbert, an employee of Pike Electric, LLC, sustained a neck and shoulder injury on October 15, 2014, for which his claim was accepted as compensable. Following a disagreement with his treating physician, Dr. Merrill White, regarding his diagnosis, Mr. Gilbert sought a second opinion. Pike Electric initially scheduled an appointment with Dr. Thomas Koenig, which Mr. Gilbert did not attend, arguing he was entitled to a panel selection for a second opinion. The Court determined that Mr. Gilbert is indeed entitled to a second opinion on diagnosis and may choose a physician from the two remaining specialists on the original panel provided by Pike, specifically Dr. Hauge or Dr. Johnson, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(C). No new panel selection is required.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsSecond OpinionPhysician PanelDiagnosis DisputeExpedited HearingEmployee RightsEmployer ObligationsMedical Treatment AccessTennessee Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 253 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