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. ADJ106846 (VNO 0536976)
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

SARKIS INDOIAN (Dec'd), BETTY INDOIAN (Widow) vs. ON THE WHEELS, SUCCESS DELIVERY, NOUNE SOMOKRANIAN, VIGEN GABOUCHIAN, ROUZZANA ARCHAKOUNI, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the decedent sustained a fatal cumulative trauma injury due to his employment with Success Delivery. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, lacked sufficient factual basis and an accurate employment history to establish a causal link. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record to determine if the employment with Success Delivery contributed to the injury.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsEmployment relationshipSubstantial shareholderPartnershipUninsured employerMedical evidenceCausationApportionment
References
4
Case No. ADJ1916556 (RIV 0038645) ADJ2708670 (ANA 0358650)
Regular
Nov 15, 2013

GHEORGHE TOMA vs. BASIC ELECTRIC, INC.; SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) successfully petitioned for reconsideration, overturning a previous finding that the applicant was eligible for SIBTF benefits. The Board determined that the applicant did not qualify because the WCJ improperly considered disability arising from the natural progression of a prior injury after a subsequent injury. SIBTF liability is based solely on the disability level at the time of the subsequent injury, which was 32% in this case. Consequently, the applicant was found not qualified for SIBTF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751permanent disabilitycumulative traumaspecific injuryPetition to ReopenAgreed Medical Examinerapportionmentnew and further disabilityHaendiges v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ3143756 (SFO 0487728) ADJ317043 (SFO 0488179)
Regular
Nov 22, 2011

MICHAEL MCNAMARA vs. LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIAL, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES TRUST FUND, TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

This case concerns applicant Michael McNamara's claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Fund (SIF) benefits due to three industrial injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) initially awarded SIF benefits based on 100% permanent disability, but SIF sought reconsideration, arguing the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule's Combined Values Chart (CVC) was not properly applied to avoid overlap between disabilities. The Appeals Board found that the WCJ incorrectly combined disabilities from multiple injuries and rescinded the award. The matter was returned to the trial level for further medical record development to properly assess the applicant's overall disability from all three injuries.

Subsequent Injuries FundPermanent DisabilityCombined Values ChartMultiple Disabilities TableApportionmentOverlapPyramidingWhole Person ImpairmentAMA GuidesLabor Code section 4751
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Ozone Park Lumber

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the third-party complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute "grave injuries" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the third-party plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuriesAppellate CourtReversalMotion GrantedDismissalDamages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mancuso v. Collins

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted summary judgment to defendants John A. Camille, Todd M. Collins, Sharon R. Collins, and a fourth-party defendant in a multi-vehicle personal injury action, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden to establish that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 [d]. The defendants' own medical submissions indicated serious injuries with objective evidence. Although the defendants met their burden regarding the 90/180 category, the plaintiff successfully raised a factual issue. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying all motions and cross-motions, and reinstated the second amended complaint.

Personal InjuryMulti-Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance Law 5102(d)Appellate ReversalMedical EvidenceRange of MotionObjective EvidenceSpinal Injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ7348607
Regular
Oct 04, 2013

James Clark vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves James Clark's petition for reconsideration of a decision regarding Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) liability. The WCJ found that Clark sustained a 13% permanent disability from a 2009 work injury, which, when combined with prior permanent disabilities from other injuries, resulted in a 70% total permanent disability. Clark argued for 100% permanent disability based on prior medical reports and a vocational expert's opinion. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that the prior medical reports indicated overlapping disabilities, precluding simple addition of individual award percentages. The Board also noted that Social Security Administration determinations are not determinative for workers' compensation, and there was no ratable medical opinion for Clark's sleep or vision conditions.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityOverlapping DisabilityQualified Medical ExaminerQMEVocational ExpertWork PreclusionCategory B
References
3
Case No. ADJ9171432
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

Kenneth Evanoff vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The applicant, previously awarded 96% permanent disability for a 2007 injury, suffered a subsequent injury in 2012 resulting in prostate cancer. The initial award used the Combined Values Chart to calculate the combined disability at 98%, entitling him to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The applicant argues the trial judge erred by using the Combined Values Chart and seeks to simply add the disability percentages, leading to a 100% combined disability. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that in the absence of overlapping disabilities, the disabilities should be added, entitling the applicant to a 100% permanent disability rating and remanding for a new award.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityCombined Values ChartLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)(G)Whole Person ImpairmentWPIDate of InjuryDate of Knowledge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2002

Barreiros v. JJR Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by a third-party defendant following the denial of its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries, though serious, did not constitute 'grave' injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, it was established that the third-party defendant had fulfilled the insurance requirements stipulated in the parties' agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court's initial denial of the summary judgment motion was deemed erroneous.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion GrantedOrder ReversedInsurance ComplianceSuffolk County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2006

Ramos v. DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft Fuer Immobilienfonds MBH

This case involves an appeal by a third-party defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order denied the third-party defendant's motions for summary judgment regarding contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification and contribution, along with all cross claims. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that summary judgment on contractual indemnification was premature due to outstanding discovery. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning whether the injuries fell within the 'grave injury' definition under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which precluded summary judgment on common-law indemnification and contribution.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewPremature DiscoveryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. No. 29-30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson; In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni

This opinion addresses two appeals concerning Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, specifically whether a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a subsequent injury to a subpart of an enumerated body "member" must be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same member. The Court of Appeals holds that WCL § 15 (7) allows for multiple SLU awards for successive injuries to the same statutory body member, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury, considered by itself, caused an increased loss of use. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Johnson v City of New York, finding that claimant Thomas Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence that his knee injuries caused a further loss of use of his legs beyond that addressed in a prior SLU award for hip injuries. Conversely, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Liuni v Gander Mountain, remitting the case for further proceedings because claimant Joseph D. Liuni did provide evidence that his later shoulder injury caused a distinct increase in the loss of use of his arm separate from a prior elbow injury. The decision clarifies the application of WCL § 15 (7) regarding successive SLU awards and the burden of proof on claimants.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentOffset RulePrior Disability CompensationEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 13,198 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