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. 2015-07-0143
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2017

Wilson, Bradley v. Dana Holding Corporation

Bradley Wilson, an employee of Dana Holding Corporation, alleged a bilateral carpal tunnel injury due to repetitive work as a press operator. He notified Dana of his injury and sought workers' compensation. Dana denied the claim and later filed a motion for involuntary dismissal, arguing Mr. Wilson failed to provide expert medical proof that his employment caused his injury. The Court agreed, finding Mr. Wilson did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose primarily out of his employment and lacked sufficient medical causation evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Dana's motion for involuntary dismissal, dismissing Mr. Wilson's case with prejudice. The Court also reserved ruling on Dana's request for repayment of temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical CausationInvoluntary DismissalBurden of ProofExpert Medical TestimonyAttendance Policy ViolationTemporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neck-Wear Contractors Ass'n

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

Safi v. New York City Department of Employment

The claimant, who received workers’ compensation benefits for a 1995 work injury, had a related third-party action dismissed on default in 2003. The self-insured employer then suspended benefits, arguing the claimant voluntarily abandoned the action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). After initial conflicting rulings, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ’s decision to reinstate benefits, finding the abandonment involuntary. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, holding that the inaction of claimant's third-party counsel did not constitute voluntary abandonment by the claimant.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionInvoluntary DismissalBenefit SuspensionAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Legal Counsel NegligenceSubstantial EvidenceFactual QuestionCredibility Assessment
References
6
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp.

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

In re D. Children

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

Singletary v. Meloon Foundries

The claimant, a foundry molder, injured his shoulder and lower back at work and received workers' compensation benefits. After his retirement, the employer's workers' compensation carrier sought to suspend his benefits, alleging voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for making false statements. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled in the claimant's favor, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, rescinding all awards post-retirement. This appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported both the claimant's voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and his violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketFalse StatementsDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRetirementFraudWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aShoulder Injury
References
4
Case No. E2015-00407-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2015

Melissa A. Phillips v. Burns Phillips

Melissa A. Phillips, an employee, filed for unemployment benefits after being terminated by Plateau Pediatrics, PLC, while on medical leave. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development initially granted her claim, but the Appeals Tribunal and Board of Review subsequently reversed this decision, citing her ineligibility under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-7-303(a)(1)(A). Phillips then sought judicial review, and the Chancery Court reversed the Board of Review's decision, holding that the voluntary quit disqualification did not apply to an involuntary termination. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the medical exception within the statute is only applicable to voluntary quits, and finding no evidence that Phillips was discharged for misconduct.

unemployment benefitsmedical leaveinvoluntary terminationvoluntary quitstatutory interpretationadministrative lawappellate reviewTennesseeemployment lawgood cause
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,022 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