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. ADJ10419700 (MF) ADJ10543011
Regular
May 09, 2019

CHERIE BATES vs. PRIDE INDUSTRIES, UNITED STATES FIRE INS. CO., BROADSPIRE

This case involves an applicant's claim for a head injury allegedly sustained at work after losing balance and hitting her head. While her testimony and initial claim documentation suggest a work-related incident occurred, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found insufficient medical evidence to confirm the injury's industrial nature due to the applicant's history of seizures and conflicting medical reports. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the previous award and returned the case to the trial level for further development of expert medical opinion on the industrial causation of the head injury. The applicant's knee injury claim from a separate date was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryHead InjuryCredibilityFraudMedical EvidenceLay TestimonyExpert Medical OpinionOccult Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ882502 (AHM 0095268)
Regular
Sep 06, 2017

JOHN MARSHALL vs. FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS, AMERICFAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIANZ RESOLUTION, FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY LIQUIDATION, CIGA

This case concerns a dispute over the date of injury for a deceased applicant's cumulative trauma claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision that set the injury date as March 5, 1999. The Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant knew his disability was industrially caused by that date, especially given a medical report concluding the condition was non-industrial. The matter is remanded for further proceedings to develop evidence on when the applicant gained knowledge of the industrial causation of his injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryLabor Code 5412Labor Code 5500.5Concurrence of Knowledge and DisabilityAOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderReport and Recommendation
References
5
Case No. ADJ9239010, ADJ9471758, ADJ9617675
Regular
May 04, 2015

Richard Sullivan vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied industrial injuries to his right ankle, left knee, and psyche. The applicant's primary contention was an error in the date of injury for his left knee claim, arguing it should be February 6, 2014, not February 16, 2014. While the Board granted reconsideration to amend the finding to include both dates, they affirmed the overall decision denying compensability for the knee injury, as it was deemed consequential to a previously non-industrial injury. Therefore, all claimed industrial injuries were ultimately found not compensable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of FactIndustrial InjuryConsequential InjuryDate of InjuryWCJApplicantDefendantSelf-Insured
References
0
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1987

Claim of Betances v. Hexreed Industries, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on February 2, 1987, which found the State Insurance Fund (SIF) not liable for compensation benefits to a claimant. The employer, Hexreed Industries, Inc., and the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (appellants) challenged SIF’s cancellation of Hexreed’s workers’ compensation policy, effective January 5, 1980, for nonpayment of premium. The core issue was whether SIF complied with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding the mailing of cancellation notices via certified or registered mail with a return receipt. Appellants argued that SIF failed to produce a return receipt and that a discrepancy existed in its mailing manifest. However, the Board credited testimony from SIF's senior underwriter regarding standard office procedures for cancellations. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the failure to produce a return receipt does not preclude a finding of proper cancellation and that the statutory requirement of a specified date refers to the cancellation date itself, not the filing date.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy CancellationNotice of CancellationCertified MailReturn ReceiptStatutory ComplianceMailing ProceduresWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ10809542; ADJ17227129
Regular
Apr 01, 2025

Rick Broussard vs. John Kirby, The Hartford, Oak River Insurance Company

Applicant Rick Broussard, a carpet cleaner, sustained industrial injuries to multiple body parts. Defendant Oak River Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding the Labor Code section 5500.5 liability period and the scope of industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the decision to include an express finding that the Labor Code section 5412 date of injury was August 2, 2017, and otherwise affirmed the WCJ's decision. The Board also clarified aspects of Labor Code section 5909 concerning the timeline for acting on reconsideration petitions and upheld the WCJ's findings on the date and extent of injury based on substantial medical evidence.

Labor Code section 5500.5Labor Code section 5412Petition for Reconsiderationcumulative injurydate of injurycompensable disabilitysubstantial evidenceagreed medical evaluatoroccupational diseasecarpal tunnel syndrome
References
17
Case No. 535366
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Glen Delaney

Claimant Glen Delaney filed a workers' compensation claim for bilateral arm and hand injuries diagnosed as neuropathy, osteoarthritis, bilateral carpal tunnel, and right cubital tunnel syndrome, attributed to a work-related occupational disease as a construction laborer. The Workers' Compensation Board established December 19, 2018, as the date of disablement, holding John P. Picone, Inc., as the employer at that time, and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company as the liable carrier. Picone and Starr Indemnity appealed, challenging the disablement date and arguing Jett Industries Inc. should be the liable employer under Workers' Compensation Law § 44. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the chosen disablement date and clarifying that Workers' Compensation Law § 44 dictates liability for the employer at or preceding the disablement date. The Court also upheld the WCLJ's preclusion of untimely cross-examination of physicians by the appellants.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementLast Employer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityIME Report PreclusionRepetitive Stress Injury
References
25
Case No. ADJ1970560 (OAK 0344240)
Regular
Mar 09, 2016

VAZGEN MANAS vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, as administrator of the SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns a credit sought by the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) for permanent disability advances paid to the applicant. The SIBTF argued that its liability for combined permanent disability should be calculated under Labor Code section 4751, which limits liability to the difference between the combined disability and the disability from the subsequent injury alone. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board agreed, reversing the prior finding that allowed a credit under section 4753 for the employer's payments. The Board clarified that section 4753 applies to payments for preexisting disability, not the subsequent industrial injury, and thus SIBTF's credit is limited by section 4751.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Labor Code section 4753permanent disability advancespreexisting permanent disabilitysubsequent industrial injurycombined permanent disabilitycreditWCJFindings of Fact
References
6
Case No. LAO 0805059 & LAO 0844230
Regular
Jan 07, 2008

JOSE TAPIA vs. RSS AERO INDUSTRIES, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the judge's award of 59% permanent disability. The employer argued the judge incorrectly used the 2004 permanent disability schedule instead of the 1997 schedule for injuries sustained in 2001 and 2004. The Board found the use of the 2004 schedule was proper as it applied to the date of the applicant's last industrial injury. The Board also noted that the employer waived any objections to combining the injuries into a single award by not raising them in their petition.

WilkinsonParkerNuellepermanent disabilityreconsiderationapportionmentcompensation scheduleindustrial injuryWCABLabor Code
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 14,673 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