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. 2015-07-0338
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2016

Pollard, Alvin v. Jones Companies LTD.

In this workers' compensation case, Alvin Pollard sought permanent partial disability, future medical benefits, and discretionary costs for injuries to his left hand sustained on September 15, 2014, while working for Jones Companies, LTD. The employer contested the extent of permanent partial disability for Mr. Pollard's index and middle fingers, as the treating physician, Dr. John Sparrow, assigned only a 3% impairment based solely on the ring finger amputation. However, the Court found Dr. Sparrow's rating rebutted by the independent medical evaluation of Dr. Samuel Chung, who assessed a 5% impairment to the body as a whole, including the index and middle fingers, due to traumatic amputations and persistent digital neuromas. Consequently, Judge Amber E. Luttrell ordered Jones Companies, LTD, to pay Mr. Pollard $11,064.38 in permanent partial disability benefits, provide lifetime future medical benefits, and cover $1,138.10 in discretionary costs, finding his claims were granted based on Dr. Chung's more comprehensive assessment.

Permanent Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsDiscretionary CostsHand InjuryFinger AmputationDigital NeuromaAMA GuidesImpairment RatingIndependent Medical EvaluationRebuttal of Presumption
References
2
Case No. 2017-07-0589
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2019

Fingers, Joseph v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC

Joseph Fingers, a machine operator for Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, sustained a compensable right hip injury after being struck by a forklift. Following surgery and treatment, Dr. Thomas Byrd determined Mr. Fingers had reached maximum medical improvement and assigned a three-percent permanent impairment to the body as a whole, along with permanent light- to medium-physical-demand restrictions. Mr. Fingers sought increased permanent partial disability benefits beyond this impairment rating. However, Nortek Global HVAC, LLC terminated Mr. Fingers for violating its attendance policy after he refused to return to work on light duty, despite the employer's accommodation offer. The Court found that Mr. Fingers' actions constituted misconduct and denied his claim for increased benefits, while still awarding him permanent partial disability benefits based on the three-percent impairment and entitlement to future medical treatment.

Hip InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityIncreased Benefits DenialEmployee MisconductAttendance PolicyLight Duty WorkMedical Impairment RatingFuture Medical CareEmployer AccommodationForfeiture of Benefits
References
2
Case No. ADJ9365173
Regular
Jun 19, 2017

MARIA LOPEZ vs. GENERAL WAX CO. INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of permanent total disability for the applicant. The applicant sustained admitted industrial injuries including a partial finger amputation, hypertension, gastrointestinal issues, and a psychiatric injury. The Board found that the finger amputation constituted a "violent act" under Labor Code section 4660.1(c), making the applicant's psychiatric impairment compensable. The defendant's arguments regarding stale medical records and insufficient vocational expert analysis were rejected due to lack of proper citation and contradictory evidence in the record.

AOE/COEPermanent Total DisabilityPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code 4660.1(c)Violent ActCatastrophic InjuryVocational ExpertApportionmentSubstantial Medical EvidencePetition for Reconsideration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1998

Banegaz v. F.L. Smithe Machine Co.

This case involves a plaintiff worker who sustained severe work site injuries, leading to the complete amputation of one finger and partial amputation of another. The worker sued a product manufacturer, and the manufacturer subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the worker's employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the worker's injuries did not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the decision was unanimously affirmed. The appellate court clarified that "loss of multiple fingers" does not necessarily require a total loss to qualify as a "grave injury" under the statute.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationFinger AmputationWork Site InjuryProduct Manufacturer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityThird-Party ActionsSummary Judgment DenialAppellate Affirmation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godwin v. Morgan Lumber Co.

In this worker's compensation case, an employee suffered severe injuries to his left hand, including the amputation of his index and long fingers and a laceration to his ring finger, due to a saw accident. The employer challenged the trial court's award for permanent loss of use of the entire hand, contending it should be limited to the injured fingers. Medical experts, Dr. Robert James Barnett and Dr. Robert J. Smith, provided testimony indicating significant permanent partial disability to the employee's left hand as a whole, with estimates of 45% and 40% respectively, and noted the employee's difficulty gripping. The trial court determined that these injuries resulted in a 100% loss of use of the left hand for labor purposes, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court referenced several precedents, including a New York case, supporting the principle that severe finger injuries can equate to the loss of use of the hand when they impair an individual's ability to perform work.

worker's compensationhand injuryfinger amputationpermanent partial disabilityloss of usemedical testimonyappellate affirmationsaw accidentlabor capacitylegal precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Canfield v. Thompson & Johnson Equipment

The claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning benefits for a work-related hand injury. Following the amputation of two fingers, the claimant sought an award based on a 70% schedule loss of use of the right hand, arguing for an additional 'loading' percentage as described in the Board's medical guidelines. The Board, however, determined that 'loading' was already incorporated into the percentage losses specified for multiple digit amputations in their guidelines. Consequently, the claimant's award was modified to reflect a 35% schedule loss of use. The appellate court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding a rational basis for its interpretation of the medical guidelines.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAmputationMedical GuidelinesLoading CalculationRight Hand InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWork-related AccidentJudicial Affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCoy v. Queens Hydraulic Co.

The plaintiff suffered a partial amputation of her right index finger while operating a hydraulic press, leading to an action against Queens Hydraulic Co., Inc., for negligent design and manufacture. Queens Hydraulic then filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Feldware, Inc. Feldware moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's injury was not a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which permits employer liability only for such injuries. The Supreme Court denied Feldware's motion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that a partial loss of an index finger does not constitute a "grave injury" as defined by the statute, thus dismissing the third-party complaint against Feldware.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionAmputationIndex FingerAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Claim of Feeney v. Island Cable Construction, Inc.

Claimant, a telephone cable splicer, sustained a partial amputation of his left ring finger, which did not heal properly, leading him to seek workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled he had a 20% schedule loss of use of the left ring finger. Claimant appealed, contending the loss should be applied to the entire left hand. Conflicting medical testimony was presented by an orthopedic surgeon, Richard Parker, supporting the claimant, and physician Jayaraj Kumar, who supported the Board's finding. The Board, exercising its authority to evaluate medical witness credibility, affirmed the initial finding. The court upheld the Board's decision, also rejecting the claimant's allegations of bias against the WCLJ.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseFinger AmputationMedical TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewJudicial BiasOrthopedic SurgeryDistal Phalanx InjuryGrip Strength
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Polymark Corp.

Maria Hirsch, the plaintiff, brought an action for personal injuries sustained on November 30, 1990, while operating a logo machine at her workplace, Andmore Sportswear Corporation. She sued Polymark Corporation, the machine's seller, alleging negligence for a missing flap guard, which led to her finger being severely injured and amputated. Polymark, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Andmore, accusing it of negligence in altering the machine's finger guard. A jury found both Polymark (15% liable) and Andmore (85% liable) negligent. Andmore subsequently moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, claiming the jury's findings were inconsistent due to the presentation of single theories of liability. The Court, however, denied Andmore's motions, finding a plausible interpretation of the jury's verdict that supported concurrent negligence.

Personal InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party ClaimWorker's CompensationJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Rule 60
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Cocom-Tambriz v. Surita Demolition Contracting, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff who sustained a grave injury after a backhoe crushed his hand, requiring finger amputation and repositioning. The plaintiff initiated an action against B & P Real Estate, LLC, and Centaur Management, Inc., who in turn filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer (the third-party defendant) seeking contribution and common-law indemnification. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would preclude the third-party action. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the appellate court concluding that the plaintiff's injury—the loss of an index finger—constituted a grave injury. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppealFinger AmputationBackhoe InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 257 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