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
Jan 19, 1988

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

The plaintiff commenced a divorce action against the defendant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Supreme Court granted the divorce, awarded maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution of marital property. The defendant appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence for cruel and inhuman treatment and the excessiveness of the financial awards. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the divorce and deeming the maintenance and child support awards reasonable. The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the valuation of retirement benefits.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceChild SupportAppellate ReviewCredibilityEvidence SufficiencyDomestic Relations Law
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01941 [126 AD3d 788]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2015

Matter of Committee to Stop Airport Expansion v. Wilkinson

This case is a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to review the adoption of a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Findings Statement concerning an Airport Master Plan Update. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision which the petitioners appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, concluding that the Town Board fulfilled its obligations under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found that the Town Board took a 'hard look' at potential noise impacts, provided a reasoned elaboration for its determination, and considered a reasonable range of alternatives.

Environmental LawSEQRAAirport ExpansionNoise ImpactCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewJudicial ReviewTown BoardEnvironmental Impact StatementAlternatives Analysis
References
9
Case No. SAC 306565, SAC 306566, SAC 310519
Regular
Mar 18, 2008

GILBERT A. JONES, SR. vs. TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY LIVING CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant who sustained industrial injuries in 2001 and 2002. The WCJ initially ruled to combine all injuries under the Wilkinson Doctrine for permanent disability, but the defendant sought reconsideration. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision except for the findings on permanent disability and apportionment, remanding these issues for further development and application of the Benson decision, which replaced the Wilkinson Doctrine with a causation-based apportionment regime.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentWilkinson DoctrineLabor Code Sections 4663Labor Code Sections 4664Brodie DecisionFuentes DecisionBenson Decision
References
4
Case No. GRO 0030299 GRO 0033215 GRO 0034583
Regular
Jan 24, 2008

DEBRA A. FLORES vs. FACTORY 2 U STORES, INC.; ROYAL SUN & ALLIANCE, Adjusted by INTEGRATED INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's argument that the WCJ erred in applying the *Wilkinson* doctrine for combining permanent disability awards in successive injury cases. The Board rescinded the previous award, remanding the case for further development of the record and reanalysis under the *Benson* en banc decision. This decision clarifies that *Benson* mandates apportionment based on causation, effectively superseding the *Wilkinson* rule for cases decided after SB 899.

SB 899Wilkinson doctrineBenson v. The Permanente Medical Groupapportionmentcausationsuccessive injuriespermanent disabilityindustrial injuryretail storesupervisor
References
10
Case No. MON 225200 MON 225201
Regular
Mar 05, 2008

ERMA LESTER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA/BOARD OF EQUALIZATION; SCIF

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's challenges to the original award, particularly concerning the application of the *Wilkinson* rule and apportionment of permanent disability. The Board rescinded the original decision, finding the *Wilkinson* rule is no longer generally applicable under *Benson* and requiring the WCJ to re-evaluate permanent disability and apportionment based on causation. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with *Benson*, addressing potential issues of apportionment between the two alleged injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardFibromyalgiaTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentWilkinson ruleBenson v. The Permanente Medical GroupLabor Code Section 4663
References
3
Case No. ADJ8700541
Regular
Oct 17, 2019

ZAHRA STEPHENS vs. COX ENTERPRISES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's finding of permanent and total disability based on the opinions of a psychologist, Dr. Windman, and a vocational expert, Mr. Wilkinson. The Board found that Dr. Windman's opinion lacked substantial evidence due to inconsistencies, inadequate record review, and conflicts with other medical opinions. Consequently, Mr. Wilkinson's vocational opinion, which relied heavily on Dr. Windman's findings, was also deemed not substantial evidence. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings and a new determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Total DisabilityMedical OpinionVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidencePQMENeurologistPsychologistOrthopedist
References
10
Case No. LBO 322722 LBO 322723 LBO 322724 LBO 322725 LBO 322726 LBO 322727
Regular
Dec 18, 2007

MARTIN HINDS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Martin Hinds against the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Hinds sought removal of the issues of permanent disability and apportionment, which had been taken off calendar by the WCJ for judicial economy pending a WCAB decision on the Wilkinson doctrine. The Appeals Board denied removal, adopting the WCJ's report and citing the en banc decision in Benson v. Kaiser Medical Group, which addressed the Wilkinson doctrine's applicability post-SB 899. The Board found no present need to postpone trial given Benson is binding and there's no multiplicity of conflicting appellate court opinions.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWCABBenson v. Kaiser Medical GroupWilkinson doctrineSB 899apportionmentcausation statutesLab. Code $\S \S 4663$4664(a)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1998

Wilkinson v. Planning Board of the Town of Thompson

The petitioners challenged the Town of Thompson's Planning Board and Town Board's environmental determination and approvals for a Wal-Mart 'super-center' project, which included a negative declaration of environmental impact, site plan approval, rezoning, and proposed abandonment of a road. The Supreme Court dismissed their petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Planning Board's negative declaration was not arbitrary or capricious, as it conducted a 'hard look' at environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration.' The court also ruled that the mitigating measures incorporated by Wal-Mart during the review process did not constitute an impermissible conditioned negative declaration, as they were voluntary adjustments made to address identified concerns. Finally, the court agreed that the abandonment of Lanahans Road was justified under Highway Law § 212-a.

Environmental ReviewSite Plan ApprovalSubdivision ApprovalNegative DeclarationConditioned Negative DeclarationSEQRALand UseZoningRoad AbandonmentWal-Mart
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkinson v. Bendix Friction Corp.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim after being diagnosed with a lung condition, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined in August 2003 was an occupational disease causally related to 1969 asbestos exposure while working for the employer, though not currently disabling. The claimant sought review. The Workers' Compensation Board, in January 2004, found the employer's rebuttals to be untimely. Subsequently, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review in February 2004, which the Board denied as untimely in October 2004. The employer appealed this denial. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application as untimely, given that the employer had received proper notice of the WCLJ decision.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureCausal RelationDisability ClaimAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. SAC 0343628
Regular
Feb 25, 2008

LILIAN WILKINSON vs. VETERANS HOME and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, striking the finding of unreasonable delay and the penalty awarded by the WCJ. While affirming the allowance of Dr. Pazdel's lien, the Board deferred the issue of penalties and interest under Labor Code section 4603.2. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on penalties and interest, noting that penalties under Labor Code section 5814 are owed to the applicant, not lien claimants, and that applicant's right to penalties was likely waived in the prior stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersIndustrial InjuryCertified Nursing AssistantLow Back InjuryRight Hip InjuryStipulations with Request for AwardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 5814
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 33 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