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. 2016-02-0033
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2017

Burleson, Gary v. Doyle's Tire Service, Inc.

Gary Burleson sought workers' compensation benefits for knee injuries and septic arthritis allegedly sustained during work. The central legal issues concerned whether his knee injuries and septic arthritis were compensable work-related incidents. The court, crediting the testimony of medical experts Drs. Whitman, Horton, and Smith over Dr. DeTroye, found that Mr. Burleson failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between his work activities and his claimed injuries or the subsequent septic arthritis. Consequently, the court denied his claim for all requested workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation ClaimKnee InjurySeptic ArthritisCausation DisputeMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of EvidenceACL TearPermanent ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementSocial Security Offset
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sheeley v. Sheeley Septic Service

In 1994, a claimant sustained an injury while working for Sheeley Septic Service and received workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant later sought reduced or lost wage benefits in 2005, arguing that their average weekly wage should include concurrent employment with Thompson Sanitation Corporation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board both determined that the concurrent employment did not constitute covered employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6), as the claimant, being a sole owner and officer of Thompson Sanitation Corporation, had elected to be excluded from workers’ compensation coverage. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, as evidence supported the finding that the claimant had made such an exclusion election, thereby removing their work for Thompson from the scope of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageConcurrent EmploymentExecutive Officer ExclusionStock OwnershipInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Xerox Corp.

Claimant sustained compensable injuries across three incidents in 1984, 1987, and 1988 while employed by Xerox Corporation and Monroe County Septic Service, leading to him ceasing work in 1989. After being classified with a permanent partial disability, he sought classification as totally industrially disabled in 2005, which the Workers’ Compensation Board denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the resolution of conflicting medical evidence is within the Board's province. The court found substantial evidence, including a physician's report on work restrictions and a vocational counselor's testimony, supported the finding that the claimant could still be gainfully employed, especially given his failure to provide evidence of a job search for suitable employment.

Total Industrial DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational RehabilitationGainful EmploymentWork RestrictionsMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardClaimant Appeal
References
8
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. 2023-07-2338
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2024

Holloway, Christopher v. Natchez Trace Youth Academy

Christopher Holloway, a 47-year-old employee, sustained a left-knee injury at work while breaking up a fight. He sought increased benefits, contending his permanent disability rating should include left-knee arthritis in addition to a meniscal tear. The Court, however, upheld a one percent impairment rating based solely on the meniscal tear, concluding that while the work injury aggravated his preexisting arthritis symptoms, it did not primarily cause the arthritis or his current disablement. Despite this, the Court found Holloway reasonably resigned from his pre-injury job due to his knee condition, thus entitling him to increased benefits. The employer was ordered to pay $6,449.24 in permanent partial disability and increased benefits, plus medical treatment and court costs.

Knee InjuryMeniscal Tear RepairPreexisting ArthritisAggravation of InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityImpairment Rating DisputeIncreased Benefits AwardReturn-to-Work SuitabilityVoluntary Resignation JustificationMedical Expert Opinions
References
5
Case No. 2022-07-0577
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2023

Johnson, Carlos M. v. Corecivic, Inc.

Carlos M. Johnson, an employee, sought permanent impairment benefits for a left meniscus tear sustained at work, arguing that his pre-existing arthritis was aggravated by the injury and subsequent surgery, warranting a higher impairment rating. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Jackson adopted Dr. Ferguson's one-percent impairment rating for the meniscus tear, rejecting Mr. Johnson's argument regarding the arthritis. The court found that Mr. Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the authorized treating physician's (Dr. Ferguson) opinion was correct, which stated that the arthritis preexisted the injury and was not caused or aggravated by the work-related incident or surgery. Dr. Chung's opposing expert opinion was undermined by his mistaken belief about Mr. Johnson's age.

Permanent ImpairmentMeniscus TearArthritis AggravationMedical Expert OpinionCausationPresumption of CorrectnessChondroplastyIndependent Medical Evaluation (IME)Preexisting ConditionWeight as contributing factor
References
4
Case No. ADJ8032740
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

LAURA RAMIREZ vs. LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY, TRAVELERS

This case involved a custodian injured on the job, causing admitted industrial injury to her knee and lumbar spine. The Administrative Law Judge apportioned 50% of the permanent disability to pre-existing arthritis, a decision the applicant contested. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the apportionment supported by medical evidence indicating the industrial injury and pre-existing arthritis jointly necessitated knee replacement surgery. This aligns with precedent requiring apportionment to all causative factors, including underlying pathology.

ApportionmentPre-existing arthritisIndustrial injuryPermanent disabilityWCJPetition for reconsiderationLabor Code 4663PQMEOrthopaedic surgeonArthroplasty
References
4
Case No. WCK 0067792
Regular
Sep 20, 2007

ERNEST J. WILLIAMS vs. PINKERTON SECURITY, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury to his right knee. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original award, arguing the judge erred in denying credit for temporary disability overpayments and in failing to apportion permanent disability to pre-existing arthritis. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that apportionment to prior arthritis, even if it necessitated knee replacement surgery, is required under current law and that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion on apportionment was sufficient.

WCABPinkerton SecurityErnest J. Williamsindustrial injuryright lower extremitypermanent disabilityapportionmenttemporary disability overpaymentAgreed Medical EvaluatorAME
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridges v. Liberty Insurance Co. of Hartford

The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reviewed Stanley Bridges's motion concerning his workers’ compensation claim. Bridges, a former coal miner, was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Medical evaluations indicated his total disability stemmed primarily from rheumatoid arthritis, not his pulmonary condition. The chancellor initially awarded permanent partial disability for pneumoconiosis, but the Appeals Panel reversed this, stating that under Tennessee law, coal worker's pneumoconiosis requires total disability for benefits, and no other compensable occupational disease was established. Consequently, the motion for review was denied, and the claim was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationPneumoconiosisOccupational DiseaseTotal DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityRheumatoid ArthritisMedical EvaluationB Reader CertificationFederal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969Black Lung Benefits Act
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2015

Glogowski v. County of Orleans

A land surveyor's septic system design for a farmhouse housing migrant workers was denied by Orleans County, which deemed the building commercial and required an engineer's design. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed. The appellate court reversed, finding the County's interpretation of Education Law § 7208 (n) — concerning a land surveyor's scope of practice for "minor nature" sanitary facilities — to be flawed. The court clarified that the "commercial buildings" exclusion applied to the design of a building, not a septic system, and reinstated the petition, annulling the County's determination. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Land SurveyorSeptic System DesignProfessional LicenseRegulatory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingEducation LawCommercial BuildingResidential UseMigrant Farm WorkersOrleans County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 120 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