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

Niles v. Astrue

Plaintiff Gary A. Niles applied for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, alleging inability to work since November 2004 due to a spinal condition, depression, and anxiety. The Commissioner of Social Security denied his application, a decision which was upheld twice by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), with an interim remand by the Appeals Council. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. The Magistrate Judge identified errors in the ALJ's decision concerning the evaluation of the severity of Plaintiff's impairments (insomnia, sleep apnea, obesity), the determination of whether his impairments met or medically equaled Listing § 1.04A, and the assessment of his Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) regarding prolonged sitting. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings to address these deficiencies, particularly regarding the treating physicians' opinions and Plaintiff's credibility concerning sitting limitations.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Benefits ApplicationALJ Decision ReviewAppeals Council RemandResidual Functional CapacitySpinal ConditionDepressionAnxiety DisorderDegenerative ArthritisObesity
References
50
Case No. ADJ10818354
Regular
Oct 08, 2018

LOURDES MOSQUEDA vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

In Mosqueda v. County of Riverside, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her coccyx. This finding was based on the substantial medical evidence provided by a Qualified Medical Evaluator whose opinion linked the applicant's prolonged sitting at work to her pain. The Board found the employer's medical evidence insufficient due to a lack of reasoning and explanation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAOE/COEcoccyx injuryprolonged sittingcumulative traumaPQMEsubstantial evidenceburden of proofindustrial causationmedical opinion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1983

Claim of Molyneux v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, a tester for 35 years, sustained a work-related back injury. Both physicians diagnosed him with permanent partial disability. The employer offered sedentary work with reduced hours, but the claimant retired, citing severe pain from prolonged sitting/standing, inability to lift, and the exacerbation of his condition due to crowded public transport commutes, which his own and the employer's physician also advised against. The Workers’ Compensation Board credited his testimony, concluding his retirement was not solely due to non-disability factors. The board's decision was subsequently affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketRetirementCommuting IssuesPhysician's OpinionSedentary Work OfferBoard Decision AffirmedSubstantial EvidenceBack Injury
References
2
Case No. 531404
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Stacy Seymour

Stacy Seymour, a customer service representative, filed a workers' compensation claim for neck, back, and wrist injuries, alleging they resulted from repetitive stress during her eight years of employment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) disallowed her claim, finding she failed to establish a causally-related occupational disease. The claimant appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that claimant's treating neurologist, Ranga Krishna, diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and lumbar radiculopathy, but admitted he had not conducted certain diagnostic studies and was unaware of the claimant's extensive school activities which also involved prolonged sitting and computer use. The Board was therefore free to reject this "less-than-compelling medical evidence," and its decision was not disturbed.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCausally Related InjuryRepetitive Stress InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLumbar RadiculopathyMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2004

Claim of Frank v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a causal relationship between a decedent's death and his employment. The employer engaged in prolonged retaliatory and harassing conduct, including unjustifiably withholding differential pay, threatening to revoke medical benefits, refusing to reimburse pharmacy expenses, denying vacation leave, and filing a false claim of absence without leave. This behavior, alongside repeated failures to substantiate claims regarding benefit overpayments, led to prolonged hearings. Following one such hearing, the decedent suffered a fatal myocardial infarction. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board subsequently found a causal connection between the employer's conduct and the decedent's death. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the death resulted from the employer's "prolonged pattern of intimidation, deceit, and unlawful coercion, the wrongful withholding of benefits to which decedent was entitled, and generally disgraceful conduct towards the decedent." The employer's claims regarding witness preclusion were dismissed as not properly before the court.

Workers' CompensationCausationEmployer RetaliationStress-Related DeathMyocardial InfarctionBenefits WithholdingAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceProcedural IssuesUnjustified Conduct
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupationally related disease contributed to the decedent's death. The decedent had bronchitis, an occupational disease, and also aortic stenosis, which caused his death. The key issue was whether the bronchitis contributed to his death by preventing cardiac surgery that would have prolonged his life. Expert medical testimony indicated that the bronchitis made him ineligible for the necessary aortic valve replacement surgery. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the bronchitis prevented life-prolonging surgery and affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBronchitisAortic StenosisMedical TestimonyCausationSurgical ContraindicationLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkendall v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The case involves William Kirkendall and other UPS employees suing UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after suffering back and other injuries due to a policy change requiring lifting heavier packages. Plaintiffs allege UPS refused accommodations. The court first addresses UPS's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the ADA claim should go to arbitration per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The court, citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., denies this motion, stating that individual statutory rights under the ADA are not waived by a CBA. The court then considers UPS's motion for summary judgment, arguing Kirkendall is not disabled under the ADA or cannot perform essential job functions. The court finds Kirkendall's degenerative disk disease and associated lifting and sitting limitations (e.g., inability to lift over 30 lbs, sit for more than 3 hours) do not constitute a 'substantial limitation' of a 'major life activity' as defined by the ADA, nor has he shown he is restricted from a class or broad range of jobs. Therefore, the court grants summary judgment to UPS, dismissing the complaint.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Statutory RightsContractual RightsSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activity
References
30
Case No. ADJ7354587
Regular
Oct 02, 2012

STEVEN LUEVANO vs. JUNIOR'S CAR STEREO, FIRST COMP OMAHA FOR ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the dismissal of Steven Luevano's case for failure to prosecute. Applicant's attorneys failed to provide sufficient evidence of good cause to justify the prolonged inactivity of the claim. Consequently, the Board imposed $1,500 in sanctions jointly and severally against applicant's attorneys for frivolous actions and unnecessary delay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsFailure to ProsecuteReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Bad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Case No. WCB-123456
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2023

Matter of Donato v. Taconic Correctional Facility

This is a summary of a dummy case. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

References
0
Case No. MON 0284613
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

LEOPOLDO L. VILLASENOR vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns whether applicant Leopoldo L. Villasenor's Serious and Willful misconduct claim against LAUSD was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board found that the 12-month limitation period was tolled due to the prolonged dispute over applicant's employer, which prevented a final determination until April 19, 2004. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior decision and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the Serious and Willful claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductStatute of LimitationsTollingElkins v. DerbyIndustrial InjuryEmployer LiabilityEmployment DisputeSuperior CourtPetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 121 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