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
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grugan v. The Record

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left hand in 2007, leading to a dispute over whether she should receive a permanent partial disability classification or a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately issued a 15% schedule loss of use award, which the claimant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the determination. The court noted that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and her condition was stable, factors supporting a schedule loss of use award. Conflicting medical opinions from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner were resolved by the Board within its discretion.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMaximum Medical ImprovementConflicting Medical Opinions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Picone v. Putnam Hosp.

In 2002, claimant sustained a non-work-related left knee injury, followed by surgery. In 2011, claimant suffered a work-related left knee injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined a 35% schedule loss of use of the left leg, apportioning 50% to the prior non-work-related injury, resulting in a 17.5% award. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. Claimant appealed the apportionment, arguing it should not apply to a schedule loss of use award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing medical evidence from two orthopedic surgeons supporting the apportionment of the schedule loss of use award between the work-related and prior non-work-related injuries.

Schedule loss of useApportionmentKnee injuryWorkers' compensation appealMedical opinionPrior injuryNon-work-related injuryWork-related injuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,505 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