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. ADJ7932198
Regular
Aug 06, 2019

JOHN GINN vs. LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a worker who sustained a low back injury, followed by a stroke, hemorrhage, and paralysis. The defendant school district contested the finding that the stroke was a compensable consequence of the initial injury, arguing the medical evidence was flawed. The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of a 100% permanent disability award for the applicant. The Board affirmed reliance on physicians not explicitly designated as QMEs, as the applicant had to self-procure treatment due to the defendant's initial denial of liability for the stroke.

Compensable consequence injuryIschemic strokeIntercerebral hemorrhageHemiparalysisCognitive speech impairmentPermissibly self-insuredKeenan & AssociatesCalPERS salary letterMutual mistake of factPrimary treating physician
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gordon v. Paul

A traveling salesman suffered a stroke in September 1987 due to a demanding work schedule, leading him to file a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Board determined the stroke was causally related to his employment and awarded benefits. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed the decision. While the court found Workers' Compensation Law § 21 inapplicable, it affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding it was supported by substantial medical evidence. Expert testimony indicated that the claimant's pre-existing conditions, coupled with work-related stress, likely contributed to his cerebral hemorrhage.

StrokeCausally Related DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTraveling SalesmanHeavy Work ScheduleCerebral HemorrhageCardiovascular DiseaseHypertensionWork-Related StressSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Haines v. Kip Sheldon Trucking Co.

Claimant sustained a closed head injury and left carotid artery dissection, leading to a stroke, following a rollover motor vehicle accident during employment. His request for workers' compensation benefits was disputed by the employer, who argued the stroke predated the accident due to prior medical conditions. Conflicting medical opinions were presented regarding the stroke's causal relation to the accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the stroke to be causally related, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the stroke occurred after and as a result of the accident.

Workers' CompensationCausationStrokeMotor Vehicle AccidentCarotid DissectionMedical OpinionConflicting Medical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTrauma-Induced Injury
References
5
Case No. 536047
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2023

Matter of Aungst v. Family Dollar

Claimant Frank Aungst, a store manager, sought workers' compensation benefits after contracting COVID-19 and suffering a consequential stroke in April-May 2020. The Workers' Compensation Board found his claim valid, concluding he sustained an accidental injury due to elevated exposure at work and that the stroke was causally related. The employer and carrier appealed, disputing the work-relatedness of the COVID-19 infection and the causal link to the stroke. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that substantial evidence supported both the finding of a work-related COVID-19 contraction and a causally-related consequential stroke. The court specifically credited the testimony of the claimant's vascular neurologist regarding the stroke's causation by COVID-19.

COVID-19StrokeOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryCausationElevated RiskPublic-Facing EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. ADJ8-481702
Regular
May 30, 2017

SALVATORE PUCCIO vs. ONLINE GRAPHICS AND FINISHING, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a worker who suffered orthopedic injuries from a fall and subsequently had a stroke in the hospital. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the stroke to be a compensable consequence of the industrial injury. This was based on the expert opinion that the necessity to withhold anticoagulation medication due to the orthopedic injuries directly increased the risk of the stroke. Therefore, the Board amended the original order to include the stroke as industrially caused, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Salvatore PuccioOnline Graphics and FinishingEmployers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ8-481702Petition for ReconsiderationCompensable ConsequenceIndustrial InjuryAtrial FibrillationCerebral Vascular AccidentAnticoagulant Therapy
References
6
Case No. No. 02-10-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Chesser v. LIFECARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Curtis Chesser, through his spouse and power of attorney Ava Chesser, sued LifeCare Management Services (LMS) and LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas (Hospital) for health care liability. After Chesser suffered a mild stroke, he was transferred to Hospital where a PEG tube was surgically inserted. The tube's bolster was too tight, leading to severe pain, tissue necrosis, hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, cerebral injury, and permanent cognitive deficits. A jury found for Chesser. The Court of Appeals sustained Chesser's issue that no evidence supported the negligence of three settling doctors, modifying the judgment to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit of $183,000. It also sustained Appellees' challenge to the jury's joint enterprise finding, removing joint and several liability for LMS and making it severally liable for 30% of the judgment. Furthermore, the court modified the judgment to impose several liability on Hospital and LMS for their respective $250,000 noneconomic damage awards, affirming the trial court's judgment as modified.

Health Care LiabilityMedical NegligencePEG Tube ProcedureJoint EnterpriseVicarious LiabilityComparative ResponsibilitySettlement CreditNoneconomic DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory Caps
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Chesser v. LifeCare Management Services, L.L.C.

Plaintiff Curtis Chesser sued LifeCare Management Services, L.L.C. (LMS) and LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas, L.P. d/b/a LifeCare Hospital of Fort Worth (Hospital) for health care liability. After a stroke, Chesser was transferred to Hospital for rehabilitation, where a PEG tube was surgically inserted. He subsequently experienced severe pain and complications due to a too-tight bolster, leading to necrosis, hemorrhage, and eventually cardiopulmonary arrest, cardiac injury, and permanent cognitive deficits at another hospital. The jury found negligence against Hospital and LMS, and attributed percentages of responsibility. The appellate court sustained Chesser's challenge, modifying the judgment to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit instead of a percentage credit due to insufficient evidence of settling doctors' negligence. The court also sustained Appellees' challenge to the joint enterprise finding, modifying the judgment to impose several liability for capped noneconomic damages on LMS and Hospital, and affirmed the trial court's judgment with these modifications.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligencePercutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tubeSurgical ComplicationsJoint EnterpriseStatutory Damage CapsNoneconomic DamagesPrejudgment InterestSettlement Credit
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houser v. Bi-Lo, Inc.

This workers' compensation case involves the appeal by the widow of Phil Houser against Bi-Lo, Inc., after the denial of benefits for Houser's stroke. Houser, a grocery store manager, suffered a stroke after becoming upset over an unexpectedly large stock order. He later suffered a fatal second stroke. The trial court denied benefits, reasoning that managing large stock shipments was not an unusual circumstance for a grocery store manager. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the stroke was not caused by mental or emotional stress of an unusual or abnormal nature, a requirement for compensability. The Court emphasized that ordinary occupational stresses do not justify workers' compensation benefits, thus upholding the denial.

Workers' CompensationStrokeMental StressEmotional StimulusArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnusual or Abnormal NatureOccupational StressCausal ConnectionGrocery Store Manager
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Loftus v. New York News

Claimant suffered a stroke while commuting to work, resulting in a motor vehicle accident and subsequent inability to work. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that work-related stress caused the stroke. While his expert attributed the stroke to significant work stress, the claimant's own testimony at the hearing did not fully support these specific stressors, instead citing general pressures of daily newspaper production. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding no emotional strain greater than typical work irritations and concluding the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, deeming the Board's findings insufficient for review, as it failed to clarify whether the stroke was not considered an accident or lacked a causal link to work. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further findings.

StrokeWork-related stressWorkers' Compensation benefitsCausal relationshipAppellate reviewRemittalMedical evidenceExpert testimonyAccident arising out of employmentEmotional strain
References
12
Case No. ADJ8481702
Regular
Aug 16, 2017

SALVATORE PUCCIO vs. ONLINE GRAPHICS AND FINISHING, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to overturn a prior decision that found the applicant's stroke was a compensable consequence of his admitted industrial injury. The Board found that the medical decision to withhold anticoagulation treatment for the applicant's pre-existing atrial fibrillation, due to the necessity of surgery for his industrial injury, was a contributing cause of his stroke. Therefore, the stroke was deemed a foreseeable and compensable consequence of the industrial injury.

Compensable consequenceStrokeAtrial fibrillationAnticoagulation treatmentMedical decisionIndustrial injuryPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Denying PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNovel circumstance
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 137 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