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. 2015-06-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2017

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a trial court decision in a case involving an employee's work-related back injury claim. The employer argued the claim was time-barred because the employee's second petition for benefit determination was filed over a year after the last voluntary benefit payment, asserting that the withdrawal of the first petition was an effective nonsuit. However, the trial court denied summary judgment, finding the withdrawal was ineffective due to the absence of a judge-issued nonsuit order, thus the claim remained active. The Appeals Board agreed, holding that a mediator's "Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Benefit Determination" does not constitute a voluntary dismissal and does not stop the statute of limitations from running. The case was remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that a claim remains active unless a judge formally orders a nonsuit.

Statute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationPetition for Benefit DeterminationVoluntary DismissalNonsuitMediator AuthorityAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBack InjuryEmployer Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2024

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case examines the intersection of the rule governing voluntary dismissal of civil actions (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01) and the statutory scheme of the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). Robert E. Lee Flade filed suit against the City of Shelbyville, Stephanie Isaacs, and the Bedford County Listening Project (BCLP) over alleged disparaging remarks on social media. Isaacs and BCLP filed motions to dismiss and petitions under the TPPA. Before a hearing, Flade voluntarily nonsuited his complaint, leading to an order of dismissal without prejudice, which prompted the defendants to seek adjudication of their TPPA petitions. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the lower courts' decisions, concluding that the mere filing of a TPPA petition does not limit a plaintiff's right to voluntary nonsuit, create a vested right for adjudication, or qualify as a counterclaim under Rule 41.01(1).

Voluntary NonsuitTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Anti-SLAPP StatuteCivil Procedure Rule 41.01Vested Rights ExceptionCounterclaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional RightsFree Speech
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. M2020-01651-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Trevor Adamson filed a defamation lawsuit against Sarah E. Grove, Deborah Ann Sangetti, and Karl S. Bolton, which he voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The defendants then filed a motion to alter or amend the dismissal and a petition to dismiss with prejudice under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), seeking attorney fees and sanctions. The trial court granted the defendants' petition, dismissing the case with prejudice and awarding $15,000 in attorney fees and $24,000 in sanctions. Adamson appealed, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction after the nonsuit. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants' TPPA petition because it was filed after the voluntary nonsuit, and no exceptions to the nonsuit rule applied. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, vacated the dismissal with prejudice and awards, and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Adamson's request to dismiss without prejudice.

DefamationVoluntary DismissalNonsuitAnti-SLAPP LawTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Subject Matter JurisdictionAttorney FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The defendant, Slate Belt, moved to vacate a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff, the Government, under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Slate Belt argued the dismissal was not at an 'early stage' and would cause prejudice, despite never having filed an answer. The court found that no joinder of issue occurred, and the merits of the controversy were never presented or passed upon by the court. Extended private negotiations between the parties regarding a proposed decree were not considered the equivalent of an answer or court action on the merits, nor did incurred legal fees constitute sufficient prejudice. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was within its rights to file the voluntary dismissal, and the defendant's motion to vacate was denied.

Voluntary dismissalRule 41(a)(1)(i)Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureSherman ActJoinder of issuePrejudiceMeritsNegotiationsDistrict CourtMotion practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Claimant, a utility company employee, filed three workers’ compensation claims between 1979 and 1997 for back/neck injuries and asbestosis. He resigned in December 1999, which the employer contended was a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the retirement voluntary. Claimant appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division found the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, noting the claimant had legitimate medical ailments interfering with his duties, and the Board unduly emphasized the lack of explicit medical advice to retire. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary withdrawal from labor marketWorkers' Compensation benefitsPermanent partial disabilityAsbestosis diagnosisMotor vehicle accident claimsMedical evidenceSubstantial evidence reviewAppellate reviewRemittalDisability contributing to retirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Monroe County Department of Social Services sought Family Court approval for the voluntary transfer of custody of five children from the D. family. Following approval, the Family Court appointed Sally Moore as a guardian ad litem and later ordered the Department of Social Services to cooperate with her. The Director of the Department of Social Services appealed these orders, contending that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction after approving the initial voluntary transfer instrument. The appellate court agreed, ruling that the Family Court's jurisdiction under Social Services Law § 358-a terminated upon approval, and therefore, it lacked authority to appoint a guardian ad litem or compel cooperation with the CASA volunteer without a pending proceeding. The court reversed and vacated the Family Court's orders, emphasizing that any extension of judicial oversight in foster care matters must be legislatively granted.

Family LawChild CustodyVoluntary PlacementSocial Services LawFamily Court JurisdictionGuardian ad LitemCASAAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFoster Care
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Claimant, aged 62, sustained a work-related back injury in February 1999, prompting his retirement the following day and the commencement of social security retirement benefits. Although he had planned to work part-time until age 65, he did not seek any employment post-injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to seek alternative work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, despite being deemed permanently partially disabled. The employer and carrier's contention regarding the untimeliness of the appeal was rejected. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' CompensationAppeal timelinessMedical evidenceConflicting evidenceSocial security benefitsRetirementBack injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 543 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