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
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2006

Velasco v. Green-Wood Cemetery

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for future lost earnings. The plaintiff had previously been granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to counter the defendants' showing that he returned to work four months post-accident. While the Workers' Compensation Board found a 'permanent partial disability' and awarded benefits, these benefits only covered the four-month period immediately following the accident, with no finding of inability to return to work. The anticipated expert testimony was deemed not to be 'evidentiary proof in admissible form'.

Summary JudgmentLost EarningsFuture Lost EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor LawWorkers' Compensation BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceVocational RehabilitationOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate Decision
References
2
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. ADJ6875600
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

Sharon Walter vs. International Capital Group, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record regarding applicant Sharon Walter's diminished future earning capacity. The Board found the vocational expert evidence presented was inadequate to support a finding of total permanent disability or to rebut the future earning capacity factor as required by *Ogilvie*. The case is remanded to the trial level to allow for the selection or appointment of a vocational expert to assess applicant's diminished future earning capacity, and the trial judge may then address claims for increased permanent disability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityFuture Earning CapacityVocational ExpertReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4662Labor Code Section 4658(d)(2)OgilvieAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionment
References
2
Case No. ADJ3600842 (SDO 0363689)
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

THEMAS POULIN vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury to his heart and hypertension. The initial award granted 65% permanent disability, which the defendant challenged, arguing the assigned Whole Person Impairment was disproportionately high and that Diminished Future Earning Capacity should be zero. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for a new decision. This is because the trial judge had not yet considered the implications of the recent en banc decisions in *Almaraz II* and *Ogilvie II* regarding the rebuttability of scheduled permanent disability ratings and the evaluation of Diminished Future Earning Capacity. The Board noted concerns about the assigned impairment rating in light of the applicant's return to work and potential future earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffIndustrial InjuryHeart ConditionHypertensionPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorReconsiderationAlmaraz
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pruter v. Hopson

This case concerns an appeal regarding an automobile collision where Nancy Hopson sustained personal injuries. The jury found appellant Pruter negligent and awarded appellee Hopson damages including past and future medical bills, pain and anguish, past lost earnings, future loss of earning capacity ($25,000), and loss of use of her automobile ($1,200). Pruter appealed the awards for future earning capacity and loss of use, citing insufficient evidence and excessiveness. The appellate court, after reviewing the record, affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was ample evidence to support the awards. Additionally, the court assessed a 10% penalty against Pruter under TEX.R.CIV.P. 438 and 435 for taking an appeal without sufficient cause.

Personal InjuryAutomobile CollisionNegligenceDamages AwardLoss of Earning CapacityLoss of Use of PropertyAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyExcessive Damages ClaimTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 438
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirschhoffer v. Van Dyke

Plaintiff Lynne A. Kirschhoffer was injured in a car collision, and defendants were found solely responsible. A jury initially awarded Kirschhoffer $8,595,000 and her husband $1.8 million for derivative claims. The Supreme Court conditionally reduced these awards for future pain and suffering, impairment of earning ability, and the derivative claim, to which plaintiffs stipulated. Defendants appealed, challenging the preclusion of their medical expert's testimony regarding Kirschhoffer's pre-existing spondylolisthesis and the refusal to instruct the jury on pre-existing conditions, both of which the appellate court affirmed. The defendants' contention regarding the speculative nature of lost future earning capacity was also rejected. However, the appellate court further reduced the awards for future pain and suffering, impairment of earning ability, and derivative damages, finding the prior reductions still materially deviated from reasonable compensation, and ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless plaintiffs stipulate to the further reduced amounts.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentDamages ReductionJury AwardMedical Expert TestimonyPre-existing ConditionLost Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewPain and SufferingSpondylolisthesis
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Housing Authority of Crystal City v. Lopez

Ricardo Lopez sued the Housing Authority of the City of Crystal City, Texas, alleging retaliatory discrimination under the Whistleblower Act after reporting potential conflicts of interest and violations to HUD. The trial court awarded Mr. Lopez damages for past lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Housing Authority challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for all awards. The appellate court reversed the awards for future lost earning capacity and mental anguish, reduced the past lost earnings award, and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. However, the court affirmed the jury's finding of retaliation and malice, upholding the award for exemplary damages.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DiscriminationLost EarningsMental AnguishExemplary DamagesMalicePublic EmployeeHousing AuthorityEmployment LawTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 9313
Regular Panel Decision

Central Power & Light Co. v. Caballero

Richard A. Caballero, a former lineman for Central Power & Light Company (CPL), sued CPL for employment discrimination based on a "handicap" under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Caballero, awarding him $33,000 for past loss of earnings and $200,000 for future loss of earning capacity, along with attorney's fees. CPL appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting damages in an equitable proceeding, submitting the cause to a jury for equitable issues, and awarding unauthorized damages. The appellate court agreed with CPL, holding that the Act provides for equitable relief, not monetary damages for future earning capacity, and that a jury cannot determine equitable issues. The court also noted that Caballero's interim earnings and disability benefits should have been credited against any back pay. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Act.

Employment DiscriminationHandicap DiscriminationDisability RightsCommission on Human Rights ActEquitable ReliefJury Trial RightsDamages LimitationBack PayLoss of Earning CapacityStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Meade

This negligence action arose from an automobile accident where the defendant conceded liability, and a jury awarded the plaintiff damages for lost earnings, future medical expenses, future loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. A dispute arose regarding the reduction of the verdict due to the prohibition against recovering basic economic loss under Insurance Law § 5104 (a). The Supreme Court initially reduced the verdict by the amount the plaintiff received from other sources for lost wages ($38,977.94). On appeal, the court clarified that the proper methodology involves calculating the plaintiff's basic economic loss (including medical expenses and a portion of lost earnings) and reducing the verdict accordingly. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that the verdict should be reduced by $42,967.10, representing basic economic loss for lost earnings, and affirmed the judgment as so modified, resulting in a final judgment for the plaintiff of $265,905.70.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentDamagesLost EarningsMedical ExpensesBasic Economic LossInsurance LawVerdict ReductionCollateral Source RuleAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,765 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