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. 2015-06-1067 / 47262-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2015

Harper, Randall v. USF Holland Trucking Co.

The employee, Randall Harper, appealed the denial of pre-trial benefits for cellulitis, which he attributed to an insect bite sustained during his employment as a truck driver. The trial court found insufficient evidence to establish the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the record did not preponderate against the initial finding. The Board also determined that any potential error regarding unconsidered medical records from the Med 1 clinic was harmless and declined to construct arguments for the pro se employee.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealCellulitisInsect BiteEmployment InjuryMedical Treatment DenialSufficiency of EvidencePro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. ADJ8586896
Regular
Dec 27, 2017

, Jose Benitez (Deceased), Zeferina Higuera Quezada vs. , AG Force, LLC, , Intercare Holding Insurance Services, , Gurmail Chehal and Samarjit Kaur, as Husband and Wife, Uninsured

This case concerns a deceased laborer, Jose Benitez, whose widow claimed his death from cellulitis resulted from an insect bite sustained while working for AG Force, LLC. Despite the lack of direct witnesses, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) determination of industrial causation was supported by the credible testimony of the applicant's wife and medical reports. The Board emphasized the "reasonable probability" standard for industrial causation and gave deference to the ALJ's credibility findings.

Industrial causationreasonable probabilitycircumstantial evidencecredible testimonyWCJ credibility assessmentinsect bitecellulitisspider bitebrown recluse spiderattending physician
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Cuellar

Marcos M. Cuellar, an employee of Stowers Furniture Company, suffered an insect sting on April 4, 1969, while driving a company truck, leading to total permanent disability. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, the workmen's compensation carrier, appealed the jury's finding of disability, arguing insufficient evidence for the sting and lack of causal relationship between the employment and injury. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including Cuellar's testimony, a co-worker's account, and a dermatologist's opinion, affirming the jury's finding that the sting occurred. The court also rejected the argument that the insect sting was not a risk inherent to the employment, citing precedents where similar arguments were overruled in workmen's compensation cases involving insect stings. The trial court's judgment awarding Cuellar recovery for total permanent disability was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationInsect Sting InjuryTotal Permanent DisabilityCourse of EmploymentCausal RelationshipRisk of EmploymentJury FindingsAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTrial Court Affirmed
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanton v. Pomfrey

In this case, a plaintiff, Shy Stanton, was injured while repaving a driveway when he encountered a bee's nest. He sprayed the nest with insect spray provided by the homeowner (defendant), then slipped and fell on his back. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. However, the dissenting judges argue that the Supreme Court erred, contending that there are triable issues of fact regarding the defendant's negligence in providing the insect spray and whether this conduct was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident, which should be determined by a jury. They would reverse the order and reinstate the complaint.

Slip and fallInsect sprayNegligencePremises liabilitySummary judgmentProximate causeDuty of careHomeowner liabilityWorker injuryAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2017-08-0628
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2018

Maaitah, Cynthia L. v. Raymond James Financial

Cynthia Maaitah claimed multiple spider bites in her genital area and legs sustained while working for Raymond James Financial from March to June 2016, seeking medical and temporary disability benefits. Raymond James contested the compensability of her claim, arguing the condition was not work-related. An expedited hearing was conducted on January 19, 2018. The Court determined that Ms. Maaitah failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim at this preliminary stage. Consequently, the requested workers' compensation benefits for medical and temporary disability were denied due to insufficient evidence linking the alleged spider bites to her employment.

Workers' Compensation ClaimSpider BitesDenial of BenefitsExpedited HearingCausationEmployment-Related InjuryMedical and Temporary Disability BenefitsContact DermatitisBurden of ProofTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gribetz

The People moved for disclosure of defendant A.T.'s HIV test results under Public Health Law § 2785 (2) (a). A.T. is charged with reckless endangerment and attempted assault after allegedly biting a mental health worker and threatening to transmit AIDS, claiming to be HIV positive. The court found a 'compelling need' for disclosure to prove A.T.'s state of mind and the grave risk of death required for reckless endangerment, despite the bite not breaking the skin. Weighing disclosure against privacy, the court determined A.T. waived her privacy interest by publicly announcing her HIV status and using it to threaten a crime. The motion was granted, ordering disclosure to the Rockland County District Attorney's Office with strict limitations on redisclosure and sealing of related documents.

HIV disclosurereckless endangermentattempted assaultpublic health lawcompelling needprivacy interestwaivercriminal proceedingbite incidentmental health facility
References
4
Case No. M2022-01787-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

Rebecca Hudson v. Paul Gravette

A kennel technician filed a personal injury action against dog owners after being attacked by their dogs while at her workplace. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the dog owners on both statutory and common law negligence claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the statutory claim, determining that the boarding facility, Chasing Tails Pet Farm, qualified as a "statutory owner" at the time of the incident due to its regular control and benefit from the dogs' presence. Consequently, the legal owners, the Gravettes, were not liable under the strict liability dog bite statute. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the common law negligence claim, holding that the dog bite statute does not abrogate such claims against legal owners who had knowledge of their dogs' vicious propensities. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dog BitePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommon Law NegligenceDog Owner LiabilityStrict LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRemand
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longstreet v. Peltz

The plaintiff, a nanny, allegedly sustained injuries from a dog bite by the defendant's dog. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the dog lacked vicious propensities, but the Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryDog BiteSummary JudgmentVicious PropensitiesAppellate ReviewNannyPrima Facie ShowingTriable Issue of FactReversedMotion Granted
References
5
Case No. ADJ8 440661 ADJ8954872 ADJ8954861
Regular
Mar 18, 2016

CRAIG GROTH vs. COASTLAND, INC. dba COAST LANDSCAPE, BRECKENRIDGE INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the prior award, finding the applicant's dog bite injury claim (ADJ8440661) was not barred by the statute of limitations. This decision reversed the trial judge's finding, holding that the employer's failure to inform the applicant of his workers' compensation rights tolled the statute until the claim was officially reported. The Board found prejudice to the applicant without tolling and rejected the defendant's argument regarding prejudice to the carrier, noting the insurer retains credit rights. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other issues related to ADJ8440661.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsTollingEmployer Duty to InformDog BiteLandscape Construction WorkerReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardMedical Legal Costs
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 27 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