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. 2018-06-0018
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Gerald C. Coon, an employee, filed a request for temporary disability and medical benefits after an alleged back injury on September 22, 2017, due to a malfunctioning safety lanyard at Commercial Warehouse and Cartage, Inc. (CWC). Mr. Coon claimed continuous pain and denial of medical treatment by CWC. However, CWC witnesses testified Mr. Coon did not exhibit pain or request medical care until November 19, 2017. The Court found Mr. Coon's testimony not credible. Medical opinions varied, with Dr. Robert Carver, a panel physician, determining Mr. Coon's conditions (degenerative disc disease and lumbosacral radiculopathy) were not work-related. Dr. William M. Gavigan diagnosed a work-related lumbar strain but a non-work-related disc herniation. The Court credited Dr. Gavigan's opinion as most persuasive, confining the compensable injury to a lumbar strain, and found Mr. Coon unlikely to prevail on entitlement to additional medical treatment or temporary disability benefits, as no doctor took him off work for the strain. The Court, therefore, denied Mr. Coon's request for benefits.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryLumbar StrainDegenerative Disc DiseaseLumbosacral RadiculopathyMedical CausationCredibility AssessmentExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

A volunteer fireman suffered an acute lumbosacral strain requiring frequent hospital and doctor visits. He sought reimbursement for 290 miles of travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Board approved reimbursement at 20 cents per mile, leading to this appeal. The court examined whether travel expenses for medical treatment are reimbursable under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law and Workers’ Compensation Law. It concluded that access to medical treatment implies the financial means to obtain it, upholding the humanitarian goals of the legislation.

Volunteer FiremanLumbosacral StrainMileage ReimbursementTravel ExpensesMedical TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawVolunteer Firemen's Benefit LawStatutory InterpretationRemedial LawLiberal Construction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1999

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Claimant, employed by Manpower, Inc., experienced back, buttocks, and leg pain from repetitive manual labor as a plastics inspector and punch machine operator between April 1995 and May 1996. Diagnosed with chronic lumbosacral strain and sciatica by her chiropractor, she filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that she sustained a causally related occupational disease, a decision appealed by Manpower and its carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the occupational disease determination and that timely notice was given under Workers’ Compensation Law § 45 for occupational diseases, rather than the 30-day requirement for accidental injuries under § 18.

Occupational diseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardRepetitive strain injuryLumbar strainSciaticaTimely noticeAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceChiropractic treatmentEmployment injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This worker's compensation case involves Leopoldo Villarreal, who suffered a lumbosacral strain while employed by Baker Marine, leading to a judgment of total and permanent incapacity. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of testimony from the treating physician, Dr. Christopher Isensee, regarding the beneficial effects of recommended spinal surgery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, referencing established precedent that evidence on the potential benefits of surgery is inadmissible in worker's compensation cases, as courts cannot order or supervise such medical procedures. Additionally, the court found the defendant's second point of error, concerning excluded cumulative testimony about the plaintiff's weight-control issues, to be harmless. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceMedical TestimonySurgical ProceduresBeneficial Effects of SurgeryLumbosacral StrainTotal and Permanent IncapacityAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorCumulative Testimony
References
4
Case No. 2017-06-0931
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2018

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Carlotta Davis suffered multiple injuries including a right shoulder and head contusion, cervical strain, lumbosacral injury, and chipped tooth after falling while at work. The employer, GCA Services Group, Inc., initially accepted but later denied the claim, citing an idiopathic injury. At an expedited hearing, the court found Ms. Davis's injury compensable, determining it arose from employment hazards and was not idiopathic. The court awarded Ms. Davis $469.80 in temporary partial disability benefits for the period of March 21 to May 31, 2017, based on a reduced work schedule due to medical restrictions. However, it denied her claim for mileage reimbursement and further temporary disability benefits after May 31, citing an unreasonable delay in selecting a panel physician.

Temporary Partial DisabilityMileage Reimbursement DenialCompensability of InjuryIdiopathic Injury DefenseMedical Treatment Non-complianceAverage Weekly Wage CalculationMedical Restrictions AccommodationPhysician Panel Selection DelayCervical and Shoulder InjuryEmployee Termination Issues
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns an appeal regarding a petition to modify a worker’s compensation lump sum settlement agreement. The appellant sustained a back injury in 1978, settling in 1980 for a 20% permanent partial disability based on an initial diagnosis of lumbosacral strain. Years later, a ruptured disc was diagnosed, prompting the appellant to file a petition in 1982 to modify the settlement, alleging mutual mistake of fact. The appellee moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was time-barred under T.R.C.P. 60.02, as it was filed more than one year after the final judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that claims based on mistake under T.R.C.P. 60.02(1) must be brought within one year, and subsection (5) cannot be used to circumvent this time limit.

Worker's CompensationLump Sum SettlementPetition to ModifyMutual Mistake of FactTimelinessT.R.C.P. 60.02Permanent Partial DisabilityRuptured DiscBack InjuryAffirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The plaintiff employee, Jessie Lee Masters, sought worker's compensation benefits for a 50% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole, attributed to a back injury sustained while lifting bundles on the job in April 1977. The defendant employer appealed the Chancery Court's decree, challenging the finding of an employment-related injury and compliance with notice provisions. Although medical evidence from Dr. Ronald Rosenthal supported the causation and permanency of her chronic lumbosacral strain superimposed on preexisting degenerative arthritis, the Supreme Court determined that Masters failed to provide the employer with sufficient actual knowledge of an injury as required by T.C.A., § 50-1001. The court emphasized that merely requesting a 'bundle boy' due to strenuous work did not constitute proper notice of an injury claim. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, and her suit was dismissed.

Permanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryNotice of Injury RequirementActual Knowledge DoctrineEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Causation EvidenceDegenerative Arthritis ConditionLumbosacral Strain DiagnosisAppellate Court ReviewTennessee Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. 2015-05-0274
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2016

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Margaret Virgil sought workers' compensation benefits for back pain, alleging it arose from her employment with Nissan North America, particularly after a change in job duties in 2015. Her claim was denied by Nissan, based on the opinion of Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood, the authorized treating physician, who found no work-related injury. Dr. Stephen Neely, an independent medical examiner, initially supported a work-related injury and 12% impairment, but later revised his opinion to 2% impairment, describing "chronic lumbosacral strain with non-verifiable radicular complaints." The Workers' Compensation Judge, Dale Tipps, ruled in favor of Nissan, concluding that Ms. Virgil failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury primarily arose out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The court upheld the presumption of correctness of Dr. Hazlewood's medical opinion, finding Dr. Neely's methodology not superior enough to overcome it, leading to the dismissal of Ms. Virgil's claim.

Workers' CompensationBack PainCausationMedical OpinionIndependent Medical ExaminationAuthorized Treating PhysicianBurden of ProofTennessee LawLumbar SpondylosisPiriformis Syndrome
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns an appeal from a Workmen's Compensation Board decision filed November 22, 1974. The board had found that prolonged emotional stress and strain contributed to the death of a 50-year-old building manager, whose existing hypertensive cardiovascular disease was exacerbated by the stress. The stress stemmed from a portion of his building's cornice falling, leading to the manager's collapse and subsequent death from a massive intercerebral hemorrhage. Medical experts provided conflicting testimony regarding the causality between the emotional strain and death. However, the Board, exercising its fact-finding powers, accepted the opinion that the emotional strain was an unusual factor contributing to his fatal attack. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial medical evidence and should not be disturbed.

emotional stresshypertensive cardiovascular diseaseintercerebral hemorrhageworkplace accidentmedical causalitycompensable deathWorkers' Compensation Lawsubstantial evidenceBoard decision affirmedcoronary heart disease
References
4
Case No. 2019-08-0045
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2020

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Employee Michael Mask, a truck driver, suffered a low back injury at work but was subsequently diagnosed with multiple myeloma. The employer, Hub Group, Inc., provided workers' compensation benefits for the back strain but denied further benefits for conditions related to his cancer, asserting it was not work-related. Mask sought additional medical and disability benefits, arguing his ongoing pain was connected to the work injury. The trial court, Judge Allen Phillips presiding, found Mask only established entitlement to benefits for his low back strain and not for temporary or permanent disability or cancer-related treatment, crediting Dr. Wolf's opinion that his pain stemmed from cancer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding Mask was only entitled to reasonable and necessary future medical care for his low back strain, thereby denying benefits for cancer or additional disability.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryMultiple MyelomaCausationMedical BenefitsDisability BenefitsTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAppeals BoardPro Se Litigant
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 122 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