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
Mar 18, 1997

Claim of De Salvo v. Prudential Insurance

The claimant, an insurance salesperson, stopped working in January 1992, citing disability from hypertension and an anxiety disorder. Initial medical reports from Dr. Andrew Greenberg and an unnamed psychiatrist suggested that the claimant's high-stress job exacerbated his hypertension and caused a psychiatric condition. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found prima facie evidence for these conditions. However, the carrier's medical expert, Carl Friedman, attributed the hypertension to lifestyle factors. After further proceedings, including the Workers’ Compensation Board restoring the case to allow the claimant to present more evidence, the claim was ultimately denied. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to establish a causally related psychiatric disability and that his own physician's report indicated his hypertension was not caused by his job.

HypertensionAnxiety DisorderPsychiatric DisabilityCausationMedical EvidencePro Se RepresentationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical Expert TestimonyExacerbation of Preexisting Condition
References
1
Case No. ADJ6456347
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MARK WILLIAMS vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case involves a police officer claiming industrial injury to his heart due to hypertensive heart disease, a condition he argued was distinct from previously compensated hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the administrative law judge's decision, finding the claim was not barred by res judicata. The WCAB clarified that while hypertension alone is not considered heart trouble, left ventricular hypertrophy, as diagnosed in the current claim, constitutes a distinct condition. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other unresolved issues.

res judicatahypertensive heart diseasepolice officerLabor Code section 3212.5heart trouble presumptionleft ventricular hypertrophystipulated awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. ADJ401125 (LAO 0843257)
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

ORETHA BOYD vs. SERVICE CRAFT LOGISTICS, COLONIAL RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse the finding of temporary total disability and the need for future medical treatment for the applicant's heart condition and hypertension. The Board found insufficient substantial medical evidence to support that these pre-existing conditions, aggravated by work stressors, caused the claimed period of disability. Applicant's prior carpal tunnel injury and its ongoing treatment were identified as the primary cause of her absence from work. The award was modified to remove temporary disability and future medical treatment for the heart/hypertension, and attorney fees were adjusted accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOretha BoydService Craft LogisticsColonial RiskAmended Findings and Awardindustrial injuryheart conditionhypertensiondiabetestemporary total disability
References
8
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roland v. Sunmark Industries

The employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund after a claimant incurred a work-related back injury in 1980, resulting in a permanent partial disability. The initial reimbursement claim filed in 1981 cited a preexisting back condition. Subsequently, the carrier attempted to amend the claim in 1983, outside the statutory two-year period, to include the claimant's preexisting knee injury and hypertension. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied reimbursement, citing the untimely and improper filing of the amended claim for the knee and hypertension conditions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory filing deadlines and prescribed forms for reimbursement claims.

Special Disability FundReimbursement ClaimTimelinessStatutory LimitationsForm RequirementsPreexisting ConditionPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewInsurance CarrierAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ7007501
Regular
Dec 24, 2018

KENNETH McCRAY vs. RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a worker who sustained an industrial injury to his left foot. The Appeals Board found that the applicant also suffered renal failure and hypertensive heart disease as a result of the injury, awarding 14% permanent disability. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the Board erred in awarding further medical treatment for these conditions. The Board denied the petition, clarifying that treatment is awarded for conditions *caused by* the industrial injury, not necessarily the underlying pre-existing conditions themselves. The Board noted the evidence suggesting these conditions may have returned to pre-injury levels, leaving open the possibility for defendants to dispute causation for specific treatments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRialto Unified School DistrictKenneth McCrayPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryleft footrenal failurehypertensive heart diseasepermanent disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burress v. Shelby County

Donnie Burress, a deputy sheriff for Shelby County, sought employment benefits for heart disease, alleging it was incurred in the line of duty under Tennessee Code section 7-51-201(a)(1). This statute presumes heart conditions for law enforcement officers are work-related if they meet certain conditions, including passing a pre-employment physical without revealing the condition. The trial court dismissed his complaint, finding he did not meet the conditions for the presumption and that any presumption was overcome by medical evidence. The appellate court affirmed, noting Burress admitted to having hypertension at the time of hiring, thus failing to meet a key statutory requirement. Furthermore, medical testimony from Dr. Gary Murray indicated that Burress's heart disease was attributable to personal risk factors like smoking, high cholesterol, and diabetes, rather than his employment, supporting the trial court's decision.

Heart DiseaseHypertensionLaw EnforcementWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStatutory PresumptionMedical EvidenceCausationEmployment BenefitsCoronary Artery DiseasePhysical Examination
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,371 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