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

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

Matter of Rosales v. Eugene J. Felice Landscaping

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its workers’ compensation carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a WCLJ ruling that the claimant, a landscaper injured in 2010, sustained a permanent partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity. The WCLJ had considered various vocational factors, including the claimant's age, limited English skills, and low education, to determine a 10% wage-earning capacity and a $300 weekly benefit rate. The employer argued that vocational factors should not be used to determine wage-earning capacity for computing the compensation rate in permanent partial disability cases. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing permanent from temporary disabilities and concluding that vocational factors are appropriately considered under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) when fixing wage-earning capacity in permanent partial disability cases without actual earnings, especially when the injury contributed to the loss.

permanent partial disabilitywage-earning capacityvocational factorsWorkers' Compensation Law § 15benefit durationcompensation ratephysical impairmentback surgerylimited English skillseducational background
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stupakevich v. Chater

Petitioner Stephen Stupakevich challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final determination denying his disability insurance benefits. Stupakevich, a 46-year-old former lathe operator, alleged disability since April 3, 1992, due to injuries to his right arm, an inguinal hernia, and depression. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petitioner retained the ability to perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision under the substantial evidence standard, considering medical evidence from treating physicians and consultants, vocational factors, and the petitioner's testimony. The Court found that Dr. Romita's diagnosis of loss of function in the right arm was not determinative of statutory disability, and that the ALJ properly evaluated the petitioner's credibility regarding pain and vocational factors. The vocational expert identified jobs like receptionist, information clerk, or dispatcher that the petitioner could perform. Therefore, the court affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying benefits.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActDisability ClaimAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Medical Evidence EvaluationVocational FactorsSubstantial Evidence ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityChronic Pain Allegations
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sarbo v. Tri-Valley Plumbing & Heating

Claimant, a sheet metal installer, suffered a compensable back injury in August 2010. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a 55% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Workers’ Compensation Board later modified this decision, increasing the loss of wage-earning capacity to 60% and reducing wage-earning capacity to 40%, by considering vocational factors in addition to medical impairment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this modification. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling that the Board was authorized to consider vocational factors when determining wage-earning capacity under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a), and found substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination.

Permanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityVocational factorsWorkers' Compensation BoardIndependent medical examinerAppellate reviewAffirmationBack injuryWorkers' compensation ratesStatutory interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2013

Claim of Canales v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC

Claimant, a 52-year-old production laborer with limited education and English skills, suffered a work-related knee injury in December 2010. Her treating physician initially found a 100% temporary medical impairment, later reducing it to 80% in June and July 2011. Following an independent medical examination in July 2011, the carrier reduced her to a partial disability rate. An orthopedic surgeon determined 100% impairment again in September 2011. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded an 80% temporary disability rate for the 12-week period following the IME and a total temporary disability rate thereafter, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed in February 2013. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board erred by not considering vocational factors in determining her compensation rate for temporary disability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that "loss of wage-earning capacity" and vocational factors apply only to the duration of permanent partial disability benefits, not to the determination of "wage earning capacity" for temporary partial disabilities under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a).

Work-related injuryKnee injuryTemporary disabilityPartial disabilityWage-earning capacityVocational factorsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory interpretationMedical impairmentIndependent Medical Examination (IME)
References
13
Case No. ADJ6788617
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

JOSE MURILLO vs. ROYAL PAPER BOX COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant appealed the finding of permanent total disability for applicant Jose Murillo, arguing the vocational evidence was unsubstantial and improperly considered non-industrial factors. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, finding the vocational expert's report constituted substantial evidence. The report concluded Murillo's multiple industrial impairments rendered him unable to participate in vocational rehabilitation or compete in the labor market. The Board specifically found the defendant's apportionment arguments unpersuasive.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentContra Costa County v. DahlVocational RehabilitationResidual Functional Capacity
References
1
Case No. ADJ8240882; ADJ8240881; ADJ8615401
Regular
Apr 21, 2025

ROBERT S. HAPPENY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN

Applicant Robert S. Happeny sustained industrial injuries during his employment as a correctional officer, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability by the WCJ due to his inability for vocational retraining. The WCJ also issued an unapportioned award, concluding that apportionment to nonindustrial factors was not proven. Defendant challenged this decision via a petition for reconsideration, disputing the method of combining disabilities and the reliability of vocational reports. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's determination of permanent and total disability based on vocational infeasibility and the lack of established apportionment, ultimately rescinding the original decision and substituting new findings of fact.

ADJ8240882ADJ8240881ADJ8615401correctional officerindustrial injuryheartpsycheright wristrespiratory systemlumbar spine
References
14
Case No. ADJ2262922 (SRO 0041418)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

DEBBIE LEVINE vs. STARBUCKS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a permanent disability rating of 42%, arguing the vocational expert's assessment of diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) was rebutted and that Labor Code section 4662 should apply for total disability. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the applicant failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the DFEC, as she never sought employment and her vocational expert's opinion was largely attributed to economic factors. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for applying Labor Code section 4662, as the applicant's alleged permanent total disability was not supported by persuasive medical or vocational evidence. The applicant's unsupported claim of zero earning capacity was contradicted by medical opinions.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 PDRSOgilvie IOgilvie IIrebuttalLabor Code section 4662permanent total disabilityvocational expertsubstantial evidenceAME
References
5
Case No. ADJ2335030 (FRE 0198138)
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

Steven Thompson vs. COUNTY OF TULARE, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award of 100% permanent disability. The Board found that a vocational expert's report, which was critical to the original finding, contained impermissible factors and failed to account for apportionment to non-industrial causes. Consequently, the Board reinstated the stipulated permanent disability rating of 74% based on the medical evidence. The dissenting opinion argued for further development of the record to obtain updated medical and vocational evaluations.

Permanent Total DisabilityVocational ExpertLeBoeuf RuleApportionmentImpermissible FactorsScheduled RatingSubstantial EvidenceFurther Development of RecordAgreed Medical EvaluatorReconsideration
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,347 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