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

Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nathan Brewer, an employee of Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., sustained a work-related back injury in 1992 and received a lump sum workers’ compensation award. Following an aggravation of his injury in 1994 and further surgeries, Mr. Brewer filed a petition for enlarged benefits under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The trial court initially granted these benefits, but the workers’ compensation panel reversed, asserting that lump sum payments were final, the petition was time-barred, and findings were insufficient. The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between statutes regarding lump sum finality and award enlargement, holding that lump sum awards can be enlarged if criteria are met, but § 241(a)(2) is not the correct avenue for claims involving subsequent injuries or increased anatomical disability. Consequently, the Court dismissed Brewer’s petition without prejudice, directing that his claim for additional impairment should have been filed as a new, separate action.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump Sum Payment FinalityAward EnlargementAnatomical ImpairmentIndustrial Disability RatingSubsequent Work InjuryAggravation of Prior InjuryStatute of Limitations AccrualDisability Benefits ReconsiderationSpinal Disc Rupture
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2013

Claim of Schirizzo v. Citibank NA-Banking

A claimant, a bank teller for 22 years, sustained a work-related back injury in 2009, which prevented her from returning to work. She retired in 2012 and was found to have a 75% permanent impairment. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined her retirement was involuntary and assessed a 99% loss of wage earning capacity. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision, arguing against the findings. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant’s disability caused or contributed to her retirement. Additionally, the court found that the Board properly considered her functional limitations, limited education, age, work experience, and permanent impairment when establishing her loss of wage earning capacity.

Workers' CompensationInvoluntary RetirementLoss of Wage Earning CapacityPermanent ImpairmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewMedical LimitationsVocational FactorsWork-related InjuryBack Injury
References
7
Case No. 12 Civ. 6451(PAC)(SN)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2014

Miller v. Colvin

Plaintiff Terrie A. Miller sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The plaintiff alleged disability due to various impairments including heart problems, depression, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, scoliosis, and asthma. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John P. Costello found that while Plaintiff had several severe impairments, they did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform light work with specific limitations, such as performing simple tasks only, avoiding heavy machinery and respiratory irritants, and working primarily alone. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs like photocopy machine operator or collator operator. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with legal standards, thus denying Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge DecisionResidual Functional CapacityMental Health ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentChronic PainCardiac ArrhythmiaScoliosis
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Schweiker

The plaintiff initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405 to appeal a final decision by the defendant, which had denied his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) previously concluded in May 1982 that the 62-year-old plaintiff, a longshoreman suffering from chronic bronchitis, emphysema, arthritis, and other severe conditions, was not disabled, deeming his impairments mild and resulting from the aging process. The District Judge found that the ALJ had misapplied 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 by focusing on the plaintiff's ability to perform 'most jobs' rather than assessing whether his impairments significantly limited his ability to perform 'basic work activities,' such as lifting. Medical reports from treating physician Dr. Harold Coppersmith and consulting neurologist Dr. Stephen Gilbert consistently indicated the plaintiff's inability to perform heavy work and, in Dr. Gilbert's opinion, rendered him totally disabled due to conditions like cervical spondylosis, labyrinthine disturbance, and cervical radiculitis. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings within 120 days, instructing the ALJ to properly consider the plaintiff's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience as required by law.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeSevere ImpairmentBasic Work ActivitiesResidual Functional CapacityLongshoremanCervical SpondylosisLabyrinthine DisturbanceVocational Factors
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Robert Garcia, a pipe-fitter's helper, filed a workers' compensation claim after a work-related injury. He was subsequently terminated by Wyler Industrial Works, Inc., who claimed it was due to a low budget and his unavailability for Saturday work. Garcia sued for wrongful termination, and a jury found Wyler discharged him for filing the claim, awarding $60,000 in damages. Wyler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for both liability and damages, as well as errors in prejudgment interest and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support Garcia's termination due to his workers' compensation claim and the damage award, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodale v. Astrue

Plaintiff Rodger Goo-dale applied for supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB), which were denied. He sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, alleging inability to work since October 2005 due to physical impairments. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini reviewed the case, addressing Plaintiff's arguments concerning the ALJ's evaluation of his HIV impairment, residual functional capacity (RFC) determination, credibility assessment, and analysis of his past relevant work. The court found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, upholding the ALJ's findings. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's motion was denied.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security IncomeDisability Insurance BenefitsHIV ImpairmentChronic FatigueResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician RuleCredibility Assessment
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 11,405 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