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. ADJ3083395 (BAK 146844)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

Susan Lindley vs. PANAMA BUENA VISTA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that an applicant sustained an industrial injury while on paid administrative leave from her employer. The applicant was sent home to await a call from her employer and injured herself while performing a household chore during her paid work hours. The Board applied the "personal convenience" doctrine, deeming the applicant's actions reasonably contemplated by her employment situation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusan LindleyPanama Buena Vista Union School Districtbus driver trainerindustrial injuryleft elbowarose out of employmentin the course of employmentpaid administrative leavepersonal convenience doctrine
References
5
Case No. ADJ1091802 (SBR 0342159)
Regular
Nov 09, 2010

GEORGE QUINN, JR., et al vs. VISTAR MANAGEMENT, ZURICH AMERICAN, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INCORPORATED

This case involved a deceased worker whose family sought death benefits, claiming partial dependency. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the prior award, which found no dependents and allocated the benefit to the state. The majority ruled that the decedent's financial contributions and household chores did not exceed the cost of his own living expenses or constitute support. However, one commissioner dissented, arguing for remand to determine if the decedent's personal care for his grandmother constituted extraordinary services qualifying as support.

Death benefitdependentspartial dependencycommunity livingfamily potcontributionsstandard of livingsupport paymentsadult childDeceased employee
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Dupkanicova v. Vasiloff

The plaintiff, an employee, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing housecleaning chores at the defendant's single-family home. She initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200, claiming the ladder was improperly placed. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the causes of action. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendant did not exercise supervisory control over the plaintiff's method of work, thus precluding liability under common law or Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryLadder FallHousecleaningSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law 200Owner LiabilitySupervisory ControlWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Leide v. Dowling

The petitioner challenged the termination of homemaker services by the City Commissioner, a decision upheld by the State Commissioner. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated the Commissioners' determination, deeming it arbitrary and capricious, and issued a permanent injunction. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the Commissioners' determination, and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court found that the agency's interpretation of its regulations regarding homemaker services, which were being used for long-term child care and home chores contrary to their intended short-term purpose and skill development, was not irrational or unreasonable. Furthermore, the issuance of a permanent injunction was deemed an extraordinary remedy, especially since the regulations mandate six-month reviews of such services.

Administrative LawCPLR Article 78Homemaker ServicesAgency DeterminationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousRegulatory InterpretationPermanent InjunctionSocial Services LawChild Care
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mastan v. Nashua Tape Products

On May 10, 1989, a mill operator injured his right shoulder, leading to two surgical procedures. The Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) medical examiner determined he was permanently partially disabled, not totally. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) affirmed this finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Board, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing the claimant’s testimony about his ability to read, write, drive, and perform household chores, along with extensive community involvement. Physician testimonies also supported the view that the claimant could perform light-duty work. The court inferred that the claimant's reluctance to retrain for lower-wage work, despite earlier findings of unsuitability for vocational rehabilitation due to pain, indicated an unwillingness rather than an inability to perform other work.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Industrial DisabilityVocational RehabilitationLight Duty WorkMedical EvidencePain ManagementReluctance to RetrainIndustrial DisabilityShoulder Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bogard v. Highlands Insurance Co.

This is a worker's compensation case regarding the employment status of Eugene W. Bogard, who was found dead on a lease where he performed pumping chores for Delta Drilling Company. The Defendant insurance carrier moved for summary judgment, arguing Bogard was an independent contractor, not an employee. The trial court granted this motion. The Appellant appealed, contending that the defendant failed to prove the lack of a fact issue regarding Bogard's employment status. The appellate court applied the "right of control" test, examining the contract between Bogard (as "Contractor") and Delta Drilling Company (as "Owner"). Despite the Appellant's reliance on deposition testimony, the court found no evidence to raise a fact issue regarding Delta Drilling Company's actual control over the details of Bogard's work, especially given the explicit contract terms defining him as an independent contractor. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRight of Control TestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTexas LawDeath BenefitsDeceased Worker
References
7
Showing 1-7 of 7 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