Workers Compensation Law Update April 2012

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Workers Compensation Law Update April 2012"

Transcription

1 Workers Compensation Law Update April 2012 Sean C. Pierce Carr Allison Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Maxim Healthcare Servs. v. Freeman, 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Civ. App. April 13, 2012) The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court s judgment, holding there was substantial evidence to prove medical causation, because, despite evidence the employee experienced chronic back pain before the accident, the evidence indicated the employee s back pain was substantially more severe, and for the first time, debilitating following the employee s on-the-job accident. In 2004, Debra Freeman, a licensed nurse, began working for Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. ( Maxim ), a nursing-referral agency. In December 2008, Freeman was working at a rehabilitation facility she had been referred to, when she injured her lower back, left-hip, and left-leg while moving a patient into a wheelchair. In April 2009, Freeman filed an action against Maxim seeking workers compensation benefits for her injuries. At trial, the parties stipulated Freeman s left hip and left leg injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment with Maxim, and that Freeman gave proper notice of those injuries. However, the parties disputed whether Freeman s back problems were related to her work accident. The medical records submitted at trial, showed Freeman was treated by several doctors from January 2009 to December During that time, she continuously complained of pain in her lower back, left hip and left leg. In October 2009, Dr. Michelle Turnley, Freeman s authorized treating physician, diagnosed Freeman with right-sided sciatica, which she indicated was preexisting. However, Dr. Turnley further stated she was sure that some of the sciatica was related to Freeman s December 2008 accident. Dr. Bruce Pava, Freeman s personal physician, testified he treated Freeman in 2004 for injuries she received in an automobile accident. He testified Freeman presented with a history of chronic, mild back pain, but that during the several occasions he saw her before the December 2008 accident in question, she never complained of low back problems. Dr. Pava further testified he saw Freeman in January 2009, at which time she complained of pain in her lower back since the December

2 accident. Dr. Pava saw Freeman at least 10 more times before trial, and he testified Freeman consistently complained of pain in her lower back. The trial court entered a detailed judgment finding Freeman s December 2008 accident caused the chronic pain in her lower back or aggravated a pre-existing condition in her lower back. On appeal, Maxim argued Freeman failed to prove her December 2008 accident was the medical cause of her lower back symptoms. Maxim pointed out Freeman s authorized treating physician testified there was not a causal relationship between the December 2008 accident and Freeman s back injury. Maxim further argued Dr. Pava admitted his lack of qualifications to disagree with Freeman s authorized treating physicians, and deferred to her opinions and conclusions on that issue. After reviewing all of the evidence presented at trial, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held there was substantial evidence indicating Freeman s December 2008 accident caused or contributed to her lower back pain. In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court cited Freeman s testimony that she felt a sharp pain in her back immediately after she attempted to seat the patient in the wheelchair. Freeman also immediately sought treatment, and her medical records indicated she consistently complained of low back pain after the accident. Although Dr. Pava testified Freeman had chronic, mild back pain before the accident, he also testified Freeman did not complain of low back pain until he started treating her following the December 2008 accident. Dr. Pava further testified Freeman was fully able to perform her job at Maxim before the accident. Consequently, the appellate court found the evidence indicated Freeman s back pain was substantially more severe, and for the first time, debilitating following her December 2008 accident. This change in her symptoms and ability to work provided some support for a finding of medical causation. Additionally, the appellate court found that although Dr. Pava testified he would defer to the doctors in other specialties, he was never presented with a specific opinion contrary to his own regarding medical causation. Therefore, Dr. Pava s general deference to the other doctors for certain conclusions went to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. Although Maxim cited three cases in support of its contention that substantial evidence of medical causation was lacking, the appellate court found none of these cases applied. In the first case, Ex parte Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 873 So. 2d 1116 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), the Alabama Supreme Court held a worker s testimony alone did not constitute substantial evidence of medical causation. However, the appellate court distinguished this case for two reasons: 1) none of the doctors stated with any degree of certainty that the worker s back condition was due to the workplace injury, and 2) in the nine months the worker s doctor treated her, the worker never mentioned or complained about an injury to her back. In Jackson Landscaping, Inc. v. Hooks, 844 So. 2d 1267 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), the worker testified he did not begin to experience pain until 16 months after the accident he alleged caused his back injury. In addition, one treating doctor testified the worker s back injury was not related to his on-the-job accident, and another treating doctor testified there was only a probability there could have been a causal relationship between the two. In Valtex, Inc. v. Brown, 897 So. 2d 332 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004), there was no evidence indicating the worker experienced a sudden or traumatic event that could have served as the cause of the worker s alleged injuries, therefore the worker was required to produce clear and convincing evidence of medical causation. The only evidence relating the worker s pain to her employment was her testimony she did not begin to experience pain until working for the employer. Furthermore, the treating physician testified he could not say with any degree of medical certainty what the causes of her symptoms were. Therefore, the court concluded the worker s testimony alone was not sufficient to prove medical causation. In this case, the appellate court pointed out that unlike Valtex, this case involved a sudden or traumatic event Freeman s December 2008 accident. The appellate court also concluded Freeman s testimony alone would have been enough to constitute substantial evidence in this case, and Dr. Pava s testimony strengthened that contention. In sum, the appellate court found there was substantial evidence to support the trial court s finding that Freeman s back pain was caused or contributed to by her December 2008 on-the-job accident. Affirmed. 2

3 Mobile Airport Authority v. Etheredge, 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 97 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 20, 2012) The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court s judgment finding the employee s claim for a back injury was not barred by the statute of limitations, because the back injury resulted from the employee s altered gait due to an earlier foot injury, for which a timely complaint had been filed; therefore the back injury was a successive compensable injury for which no notice to the employer was required and the back injury claim related back to the timely filing for the earlier foot injury. On March 31, 2006, Robert Etheredge was working for the Mobile Airport Authority ( MAA ), and was injured when a 300-poound manhole cover fell on his left foot. Initially, Etheredge treated with an orthopedic surgeon, and his foot healed without complication. Etheredge returned to work for five weeks beginning in May 2006, after which time he returned to his doctor, complaining of pain, swelling, and discoloration of his foot. He was referred to pain management, and after several sympathetic nerve blocks failed to provide more than temporary relief, Etheredge underwent surgery to implant a neurostimulator in his spine. Following the surgery, Etheredge completed a work-hardening program, and returned to work without restrictions in January Soon after returning to work, Etheredge claimed he started experiencing pain in his foot again, and began to favor his left foot and walk with a limp. Etheredge had previously been diagnosed with degenerative-disk disease, and started experiencing lower-back pain that became progressively worse, especially with the bouncing that occurred while he was driving a tractor to mow the grass at the airfield. In December 2007, while mowing grass on the tractor, Etheredge ran over a large hole. Etheredge claimed the jolt caused him searing pain, and he felt like the neurostimulator was ripped out of his spine. In January 2008, Etheredge underwent corrective surgery to reposition the device, but never returned to work after surgery. In September 2008, Etheredge underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation ( FCE ) that placed him in the light physical demand category. In November 2008, Etheredge s pain management specialist performed a diskography of his lumbar spine, after which the specialist concluded the tractor accident had accelerated Etheredge s degenerative disk disease. The specialist also testified Etheredge s altered gait that resulted from the 2006 foot injury had combined with the 2007 jolt from the tractor accident to aggravate or accelerate his pre-existing disk disease. In August 2009, Etheredge filed a complaint seeking benefits for his 2006 foot injury. In March 2010, Etheredge amended his complaint, asserting he had suffered an injury to his back that had aggravated his preexisting degenerative-disk disease, which had combined with his 2006 foot injury to render him permanently and totally disabled. MAA acknowledged Etheredge had suffered a compensable injury to his foot, but denied it had any notice of Etheredge s alleged back injury, and claimed the back injury was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court determined Etheredge suffered a foot injury in March 2006, and, as a consequence of favoring the injured foot, he developed an altered gait that contributed to his lower-back pain. The trial court also found Etheredge sustained a second work-related injury to his lower back in December 2007, of which MAA had received notice. Finally, the trial court determined Etheredge s foot injury and the traumatic jolt of the tractor accident, combined to cause an aggravation and acceleration of his preexisting degenerative-disk disease, thereby rendering him permanently and totally disabled. MAA raised three issues on appeal. First, MMA claimed Etheredge s back injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations. However, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court s conclusion that the back injury was not time-barred, because it arouse out of the 2006 foot injury. MAA argued the back injury did not relate back to the foot injury because it was an entirely different kind of injury than the injury alleged in the complaint. MAA further argued it paid TTD benefits through June 3

4 2009 for Etheredge s foot injury, not his back injury, therefore the statute of limitations should not be extended to the back injury. The appellate court rejected these contentions and found there was substantial evidence to support the trial court s conclusion that Etheredge s back injury resulted from a combination of his altered gait, which was due to his 2006 foot injury and favoring his left foot and the trauma from the tractor jolt in The appellate court concluded that although Etheredge had not timely filed a claim for his back injury, he had filed a timely complaint for his foot injury and, by implication, for every natural consequence that flowed from that injury. The court cited Ex parte Pike Cnty. Comm n, 740 So. 2d 1080 (Ala. 1999), wherein it was noted that the general rule is when the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment. Because the 2006 foot injury was a contributing cause of Etheredge s back injury, the back injury was compensable as a consequence of the foot injury. As a result, Etheredge s back injury was not time-barred, because it was compensable as a part of his foot injury claim, and related back to the timely filing of his initial complaint. Second, MAA claimed there was not substantial evidence it had notice of the December 2007 tractor accident. Etheredge alleged he gave notice to his manager and MAA s workers compensation carrier, and that he was told the accident would be covered under his already claimed foot injury. MAA denied both of these allegations. The trial court determined Etheredge had given notice, citing the workers compensation carrier s payment for the corrective surgery following the tractor accident. Paying for the surgery gave the carrier actual notice of the accident, which removed the written notice requirement under the Alabama Workers Compensation Act. The trial court also noted MAA chose not to call the adjuster Etheredge claimed he spoke to over the phone, to testify at trial. A co-worker also testified he was present when Etheredge told his manager about the tractor accident, the day after it occurred. The trial court further noted that no notice of the tractor accident was even required, because MAA was already on notice of the foot injury. The appellate court held the above findings were supported by substantial evidence and supported by Alabama law. Lastly, MAA argued Etheredge s back injury was a cumulative-physical-stress disorder, and that he had failed to establish his claim by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to (c), of the Alabama Workers Compensation Act. The appellate court concluded the trial court was presented with evidence from which it could have reasonably determined there was clear and convincing evidence establishing Etheredge developed an altered gait as a consequence of his foot injury. Ex parte Advantage Resourcing, Inc., 2012 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 99 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 20, 2012) The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied an employer s petition for a writ of mandamus, and confirmed the trial court s finding that the employee s slip-and-fall injury was compensable, because it was sustained while the employee was walking from his parked vehicle into work before working hours, and because the injury contributed to the employee s development of pain symptoms in his neck. On January 21, 2010, Hennon Hollinghead reported to work at a shop located at an industrial plant. Hollinghead entered the shop using a walkway running from a nearby parking lot. However, Hollinghead left his radio unit in his vehicle, so he returned to the parking lot to retrieve it. As he headed back to the shop on the walkway, Hollinghead slipped on a piece of PVC pipe, causing him to fall on his back and right side, which resulted in immediate and debilitating pain. At the time of the accident, Hollinghead was 72 years old. Hollinghead called for help on his radio unit, and was transported to a local hospital for treatment. After leaving the hospital, Hollinghead was initially sent for treatment with an industrial-medicine practitioner. However, the practitioner was unable to relieve Hollinghead s continued pain, so he was referred to Dr. William Patton. Dr. Patton initially believed the pain stemmed from arthritis. However, after undergoing an MRI, it was determined Hollinghead had foraminal stenosis and accumulated fluid in 4

5 his neck. Dr. Patton referred Hollinghead to Dr. Kevin Donahoe, who observed Hollinghead had symptoms potentially indicating pressure in the region of his spinal cord. Dr. Donahoe recommended a surgical procedure to decrease Hollignhead s pain by removing impinged vertebral disks in his spine, however his employer, Advantage Resourcing, Inc. ( Advantage ), would not authorize the procedure. After trial, the court entered an order directing Advantage to permit Hollinghead to undergo the procedure. The trial court found Hollinghead s slip-and-fall injury was compensable, because it occurred while Hollignhead was walking from his parked vehicle to his place of work, and contributed to the development of pain symptoms in his neck. On appeal to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, Advantage challenged the trial court s determination as to both legal and medical causation. First, Advantage contended Hollinghead s injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The appellate court noted the test for legal causation requires the employee to establish a definite causal connection between the work and the injury such that the rational mind is able to trace the resultant personal injury to a proximate cause set in motion by the employment, and not by some other agency. After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Hollinghead, the appellate court determined legal causation did exist due to the following factors: (1) at the time of the injury Hollinghead was returning to the shop where he worked, after having gone to his vehicle to retrieve a two-way radio, which no party disputed was a tool of his work; (2) the walkway Hollinghead used was also used by his co-workers; (3) a PVC pipe was allowed to remain in close proximity to the walkway used by the workers when reporting to work each day; and (4) Hollinghead s fall occurred at a time and place he would reasonably be expected to have reported in furtherance of the employment relationship. Advantage also contested medical causation. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that lay testimony, such as that of Hollinghead, could be considered along with medical testimony, as proof of medical causation. This is because the causation test finds it application in the overall substance and effect of the evidence as a whole, when viewed in context of all lay and expert evidence. At trial, Hollinghead testified he experienced debilitating pain immediately after the fall, and that he continued to experience pain that rendered him unable to resume working afterwards. Although Hollinghead admitted he saw a doctor for neck pain in 2002, he testified he had no neck pain since 2002, until after the fall in Dr. Donahoe testified the fall made Hollinghead s neck worse and at least contributed to the necessity of the surgery. Although the industrial-medicine practitioner testified Hollinghead s neck injuries were not new and were from an earlier condition, he also admitted the fall at least contributed to Hollinghead s post-fall medical problems. Based on this evidence, the appellate court concluded that although Hollinghead suffered from degenerative stenosis before the injury, there was substantial evidence indicating the condition was latent until Hollinghead s fall caused debilitating neck pain, which necessitated the surgery recommended by Dr. Donahoe. The appellate court found the totality of the lay and expert evidence in the case showed more than a mere possibility of medical causation. Supreme Court of Alabama Workers Compensation Cases No Supreme Court cases at this time. 5

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MICHAEL L. McDONALD Claimant VS. FIBERGLASS SYSTEMS, LP Respondent Docket No. 1,003,977 AND PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. Insurance

More information

BEFORE THE KANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD

BEFORE THE KANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD BEFORE THE KANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD DONALD B. KNARD ) Claimant ) v. ) ) Docket No. 1,072,705 APPLEBEES SERVICES, INC. ) Respondent ) and ) ) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORP. ) Insurance

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION RONALD L. MARTENS Claimant VS. BRULEZ FOUNDATION, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,019,265 AND COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INS. CO. Insurance

More information

FEATURE ARTICLE Evidence of Prior Injury. Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Injury Under the Same Part of the Body Rule

FEATURE ARTICLE Evidence of Prior Injury. Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Injury Under the Same Part of the Body Rule FEATURE ARTICLE Evidence of Prior Injury Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Injury Under the Same Part of the Body Rule By: Timothy J. Harris Broderick, Steiger, Maisel & Zupancic, Chicago I. Introduction

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY PAMELA R. LECOMPTE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) C. A. No. 02A-01-010 JEB CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH ) SYSTEMS, ) ) Respondent. ) Submitted:

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.]

[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] [Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] THE STATE EX REL. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Conace, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Armen Cadillac, Inc.), : Nos. 346 & 347 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: September

More information

John Coronis v. Granger Northern Inc. (April 27, 2010) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

John Coronis v. Granger Northern Inc. (April 27, 2010) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR John Coronis v. Granger Northern Inc. (April 27, 2010) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR John Coronis Opinion No. 16-10WC v. By: Sal Spinosa, Esq. Hearing Officer Granger Northern, Inc. ATTORNEYS: For:

More information

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia.

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia. 2012003449 Trial Heritage Tower, Suite 200, 18 9th Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 (706) 649-7372 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF CASE The employee requested a hearing in the above referenced claim for

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97. Suitable employment. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 143/97 Suitable employment. The worker slipped and fell in January 1992, injuring her low back and hip. She was awarded a 28% NEL award for her low back condition. The worker appealed

More information

[Cite as State ex rel. Tracy v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 477, 2009-Ohio-1386.]

[Cite as State ex rel. Tracy v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 477, 2009-Ohio-1386.] [Cite as State ex rel. Tracy v. Indus. Comm., 121 Ohio St.3d 477, 2009-Ohio-1386.] THE STATE EX REL. TRACY, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO; AUTOZONE, INC., APPELLANT. [Cite as State ex rel.

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DALE L. STILWELL ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) BOEING COMPANY and ) Docket Nos. 253,800 CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY ) & 1,031,180 Respondents

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2012-WC-01407-COA MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2012-WC-01407-COA MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2012-WC-01407-COA FLOYD MAYFIELD APPELLANT v. ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES MISSISSIPPI, LLC AND ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 31, 2000 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 31, 2000 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON August 31, 2000 Session STANLEY R. WILBANKS v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA Direct Appeal from the Circuit

More information

NO. COA09-986 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 20 July 2010

NO. COA09-986 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 20 July 2010 An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALED: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-WC-02083-COA ELSA PEREZ APPELLANT v. HOWARD INDUSTRIES INC. APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/27/2013 TRIBUNAL FROM WHICH MISSISSIPPI WORKERS COMPENSATION

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION QUANITA A. PEOPLES ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,045,122 LANGLEY/EMPIRE CANDLE COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) SECURA INSURANCE,

More information

REVIEW DECISION. Review Reference #: R0103014 Board Decision under Review: March 3, 2009

REVIEW DECISION. Review Reference #: R0103014 Board Decision under Review: March 3, 2009 REVIEW DECISION Re: Review Reference #: R0103014 Board Decision under Review: March 3, 2009 Date: Review Officer: Lyall Zucko The worker requests a review of the decision of WorkSafeBC (the Board) dated

More information

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS

More information

Employees Compensation Appeals Board

Employees Compensation Appeals Board U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of DEBORAH R. EVANS and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Orlando, FL Docket No. 02-1888; Submitted on the Record; Issued December

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION SARAH DREILING ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 65,956 HAYS MEDICAL CENTER ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE ) Insurance

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 26, 2012 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 26, 2012 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON March 26, 2012 Session GAIL FLY v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Gibson County No.

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION ROBERT BUELL ) ) VS. ) W.C.C. 03-00724 ) COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES ) DECISION OF THE APPELLATE

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691. TERRY FOSTER, Employee. TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691. TERRY FOSTER, Employee. TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F910691 TERRY FOSTER, Employee TYSON SALES & DISTRIBUTION, Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2013 Hearing

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F608015. AMANDA VOLKMANN, Employee. SONIC DRIVE-IN, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F608015. AMANDA VOLKMANN, Employee. SONIC DRIVE-IN, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F608015 AMANDA VOLKMANN, Employee SONIC DRIVE-IN, Employer FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION TRISTA RAULS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) PREFERRED RISK INSURANCE SERVICES ) Docket Nos. 1,061,187 Respondent ) & 1,061,188 AND ) ) HANOVER

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carmelo Olivares Hernandez, No. 2305 C.D. 2014 Petitioner Submitted May 15, 2015 v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Giorgio Foods, Inc.), Respondent BEFORE

More information

NO. COA08-1063 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 June 2009

NO. COA08-1063 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 June 2009 An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

NO. COA11-780 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 March 2012

NO. COA11-780 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 March 2012 NO. COA11-780 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 March 2012 TIMOTHY ROSE, Employee, Plaintiff, v. North Carolina Industrial Commission I.C. No. 898062 N.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Employer, SELF-INSURED

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THOMAS B. TENHUNDFELD, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., Defendant-Appellee, and MARSHA P. RYAN, ADMINISTRATOR,

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DONALD BRYAN SMITHHISLER Claimant VS. LIFE CARE CENTERS AMERICA, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,014,349 AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

More information

Proving Causation and Damages in Spinal Fusion Cases

Proving Causation and Damages in Spinal Fusion Cases Page 1 of 7 Ben Brodhead on proving causation and damages in spinal fusion cases. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend Proving Causation and Damages in Spinal Fusion Cases By: Ben C.

More information

Christa Hoisington v. Ingersoll Electric (December 28, 2009) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. By: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. v.

Christa Hoisington v. Ingersoll Electric (December 28, 2009) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. By: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. v. Christa Hoisington v. Ingersoll Electric (December 28, 2009) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Christa Hoisington Opinion No. 52-09WC By: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. v. Hearing Officer Ingersoll Electric

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE December 14, 2000 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE December 14, 2000 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE December 14, 2000 Session PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS COMPANY v. KATHY A. JENNINGS Direct Appeal from the Circuit

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WAYNE M. McKIBBEN Claimant VS. DRY BASEMENT & FOUNDATION SYSTEMS Respondent Docket No. 1,034,394 AND ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE CO.

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Employer) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Worker) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON June 30, 2000 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON June 30, 2000 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON June 30, 2000 Session RONNIE WAYNE INMAN v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court (Humboldt)

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No.

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS. Agency No. STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Vivian B. Nalu, Petitioner v Public School Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1872

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this a Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE KATHY GEORGE v. CARRIER CORPORATION, et. al. Direct Appeal from the Cannon County Circuit Court No. 3170, Robert

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mark A. Rice and Cindy L. Rice, : husband and wife, : Petitioners : : No. 1652 C.D. 2012 v. : Submitted: January 11, 2013 : Workers Compensation Appeal : Board

More information

SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-04-4583.M2 TWCC MR NO. M2-04-0846-01 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' DECISION AND ORDER I. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND VENUE

SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-04-4583.M2 TWCC MR NO. M2-04-0846-01 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' DECISION AND ORDER I. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND VENUE SOAH DOCKET NO. 453-04-4583.M2 TWCC MR NO. M2-04-0846-01 FIRST RIO VALLEY MEDICAL, P.A., Petitioner V. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Respondent BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARK RALEIGH ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,039,074 CHECKERS FOODS ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL SARAVIA V. HORMEL FOODS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2860 Tamela J. Petrillo, et al., * * Plaintiffs - Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86 NICHOLAS A. PICOZZI, Appellant (Respondent), IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2013 WY 86 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2013 July 16, 2013 v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS SAFETY AND COMPENSATION

More information

Employees Compensation Appeals Board

Employees Compensation Appeals Board U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of MICHAEL D. JONES and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FORT KNOX HIGH SCHOOL, Fort Knox, KY Docket No. 02-835; Submitted on the Record;

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Employer) and Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL DECISION

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1708/15 BEFORE: E. Kosmidis : Vice-Chair E. Tracey : Member Representative of Employers C. Salama : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-1459 ************

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-1459 ************ STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-1459 DIANA BOLLICH VERSUS FAMILY DOLLAR, INC. and TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. ************ APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 3, PARISH

More information

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-14-654 JAMES A. NICHOLS V. APPELLANT Opinion Delivered FEBRUARY 25, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F404691] MICRO PLASTICS,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL KNOXVILLE, MAY 1999 SESSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL KNOXVILLE, MAY 1999 SESSION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL KNOXVILLE, MAY 1999 SESSION FILED August 27, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk ROBERT JONES CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F209084 EDDIE WEBB, EMPLOYEE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, INC., EMPLOYER

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F209084 EDDIE WEBB, EMPLOYEE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, INC., EMPLOYER BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F209084 EDDIE WEBB, EMPLOYEE LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, INC., EMPLOYER CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2009 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2009 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2009 Session DON R. DILLEHAY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for

More information

Employees Compensation Appeals Board

Employees Compensation Appeals Board U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employees Compensation Appeals Board In the Matter of GEORGE G. WILK and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MORAINE VALLEY FACILITY, Bridgeview, IL Docket No. 03-453; Submitted on the Record;

More information

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT MEGAN PETERSON, HF No. 109, 2009/10 Claimant, v. DECISION THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, Employer, and SENTRY INSURANCE,

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230. SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee. USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230. SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee. USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230 SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 1, 2003 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE

More information

STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Glenn Ashley Opinion No. 27-11WC. v. By: Jane Woodruff, Esq. Hearing Officer

STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Glenn Ashley Opinion No. 27-11WC. v. By: Jane Woodruff, Esq. Hearing Officer STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Glenn Ashley Opinion No. 27-11WC v. By: Jane Woodruff, Esq. Hearing Officer R.E. Michel Co. For: Anne M. Noonan Commissioner APPEARANCES: State File Nos. AA-51728;

More information

APPEAL NO. 992942 DECISION

APPEAL NO. 992942 DECISION APPEAL NO. 992942 This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. ' 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). On August 18, 1999, a hearing was held, after which the presiding

More information

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016

Key Provisions of Tennessee Senate Bill 200 Effective July 1, 2014, through July 1, 2016 2014 Construction of Statute Definition of Injury (Causation) Revises Section 50-6-116, Construction of Chapter, to indicate that for dates of injury on or after July 1, 2014, the chapter should no longer

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKER DECISION #114

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WORKER DECISION #114 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: EMPLOYER CASE ID #[personal information] AND: APPELLANT WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT AND: WORKER EMPLOYEE DECISION #114 Appellant

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARVIN T. SMITH Claimant VS. WESTERN FEED MILLS, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,049,751 AND MICHIGAN MILLERS MUTUAL INS. CO. Insurance

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984. CHARLES MARTIN, Employee. VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984. CHARLES MARTIN, Employee. VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984 CHARLES MARTIN, Employee VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC. BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G304790 JANE E. JAMES, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT TYSON POULTRY, INC., EMPLOYER TYNET CORPORATION INSURANCE CARRIER RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98. Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease.

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98. Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease. SUMMARY DECISION NO. 70/98 Delay (treatment); Kienbock's disease. A construction worker injured his wrist while moving a plank on September 25, 1991. He continued working and did not seek medical treatment

More information

APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010

APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on June

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Continental Tire of the Americas, LLC v. Illinois Workers Compensation Comm n, 2015 IL App (5th) 140445WC Appellate Court Caption CONTINENTAL TIRE OF THE AMERICAS,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-00561-CV. ROBERT MILLER, Appellant V. MATTHEW AARON CHURCHES, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-00561-CV. ROBERT MILLER, Appellant V. MATTHEW AARON CHURCHES, Appellee AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 11, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00561-CV ROBERT MILLER, Appellant V. MATTHEW AARON CHURCHES, Appellee On Appeal from the

More information

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER

United States Department of Labor Employees Compensation Appeals Board DECISION AND ORDER United States Department of Labor J.S., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Seattle, WA, Employer Appearances: Appellant, pro se Office of Solicitor, for the Director

More information

Warwick v. Howard University, CRB No. 14-112, AHD No. 12-440A, 5 (February 10, 2015).

Warwick v. Howard University, CRB No. 14-112, AHD No. 12-440A, 5 (February 10, 2015). A full evidentiary hearing occurred on August 4, 2014. Claimant sought an award of temporary total disability benefits from December 13, 2011 to the present and continuing as well as causally related medical

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: March 25, 2014 CLAIM NO. 201166969 REBECCA MAHAN PETITIONER VS. APPEAL FROM HON. R. SCOTT BORDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PROFESSIONAL

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G ABILENE L. WENDT, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS HEALTH CENTER, EMPLOYER

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G ABILENE L. WENDT, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS HEALTH CENTER, EMPLOYER BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G002506 ABILENE L. WENDT, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS HEALTH CENTER, EMPLOYER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT

More information

NO. COA13-332 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November 2013

NO. COA13-332 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November 2013 NO. COA13-332 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 November 2013 SONYA CHAFFINS, Employee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. North Carolina Industrial Commission I.C. No. 260844 TAR HEEL CAPITAL CORPORATION,

More information

Tina Ploof v. Franklin County Sheriff s Department and (August 8, 2014) Trident/Massamont STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Tina Ploof v. Franklin County Sheriff s Department and (August 8, 2014) Trident/Massamont STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Tina Ploof v. Franklin County Sheriff s Department and (August 8, 2014) Trident/Massamont STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Tina Ploof Opinion No. 13-14WC v. By: Phyllis Phillips, Esq. Hearing Officer

More information

A M E R I C A N A R B I T R A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N NO-FAULT/ACCIDENT CLAIMS AWARD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL

A M E R I C A N A R B I T R A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N NO-FAULT/ACCIDENT CLAIMS AWARD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL CASE NO. 18 Z 600 08077 03 2 A M E R I C A N A R B I T R A T I O N A S S O C I A T I O N NO-FAULT/ACCIDENT CLAIMS In the Matter of the Arbitration between (Claimant) AAA CASE NO.: 18 Z 600 08077 03 v.

More information

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT WORKERS COMPENSATION. CALVIN BOSWORTH, HF No. 173, 2008/09

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT WORKERS COMPENSATION. CALVIN BOSWORTH, HF No. 173, 2008/09 SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT WORKERS COMPENSATION CALVIN BOSWORTH, HF No. 173, 2008/09 Claimant, v. DECISION P.I.E INC., and CONTINENTAL WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY v.

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) KIRCHER V. THE MASCHHOFFS, LLC NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Advanced Dermatology Associates : (Selective Insurance Company of : America), : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2186 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: May 22, 2015 Workers Compensation

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION 2009 ACO # 49 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION PHILLIP M. LASOTA, PLAINTIFF, V DOCKET #08-0121 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, SELF INSURED, DEFENDANT. APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE

More information

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT GREG STURTZ, HF No. 277, 2000/01 Claimant, v. DECISION YOUNKERS, INC., Employer, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Insurer. This is a workers

More information

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99. Accident (occurrence).

SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99. Accident (occurrence). SUMMARY DECISION NO. 1007/99 Accident (occurrence). The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for low back disability. The worker experienced the onset of back

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board

Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: June 6, 2014 CLAIM NOS. 201300659 & 201300144 ATWOOD T. DEZARN PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT VS. APPEAL FROM HON. JEANIE OWEN MILLER,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON July 1, 2004 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON July 1, 2004 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON July 1, 2004 Session WILLIAM G. NORVELL v. MENLO LOGISTICS, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Tipton

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JOE A. VANN, JR., Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #96-0235

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #96-0235 JEFFREY P. GUERRIERO, PLAINTIFF, 1998 OPINION #301 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #96-0235 CENTURY MACHINE INC AND SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G405820. LINDA BECKER, Employee. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G405820. LINDA BECKER, Employee. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G405820 LINDA BECKER, Employee GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, Employer RISK MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED

More information

NO. COA08-395 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 January 2009. Appeal by Plaintiff from Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial

NO. COA08-395 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 January 2009. Appeal by Plaintiff from Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 97-0468 OPINION

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 97-0468 OPINION DOROTHY KRAUSE, PLAINTIFF, 1999 ACO #207 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER S COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET # 97-0468 MEDICAL EVALUATIONS SPECIALISTS AND ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

More information

MARITIME WORKER JOB RELATED INJURY

MARITIME WORKER JOB RELATED INJURY JEFFREY S. MUTNICK, P.C. jmutnick@mutnicklaw.com Admitted in Oregon MARITIME WORKER JOB RELATED INJURY As a maritime worker, your employer must provide compensation for job-related injuries. This entitlement

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 10-7031 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 10-7031 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, ORDER AND JUDGMENT * FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 13, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court RONALD E. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 10-7031

More information

VIRGINIA: IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

VIRGINIA: IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION VIRGINIA: IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION Opinion by NEWMAN Commissioner RICHARD D. ROACHE v. C. D. HALL CONSTRUCTION, INC. COMMONWEALTH CONTRACTORS GROUP SELF- INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Insurance

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Wilma Coddington, : : No. 1226 C.D. 2012 Petitioner : Submitted: November 16, 2012 v. : : Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Lynchholm Holsteins and : State

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARION A. DAVIS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 216,570 CONSPEC MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) UNITED STATES

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-C-1403 WILLIS THOMAS Versus TOWN OF ARNAUDVILLE PER CURIAM* This is a workers compensation case. The workers compensation judge found plaintiff failed to establish a work-related

More information

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GEORGIA R. KATZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,068,293 USD 229 ) Self-Insured Respondent ) ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimant

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee. MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754. JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee. MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754 JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

More information

RE: HF No. 173, 2009/10 Gary Timm v. Meade School District 46-1 and Associated School Boards of South Dakota Worker s Compensation Trust Fund

RE: HF No. 173, 2009/10 Gary Timm v. Meade School District 46-1 and Associated School Boards of South Dakota Worker s Compensation Trust Fund March 29, 2011 James D. Leach Attorney at Law 1617 Sheridan Lake Road Rapid City, SD 57702-3783 Jessica L. Filler Tieszen Law Office Prof. LLC PO Box 550 Pierre, SD 57501 Letter Decision and Order RE:

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 5/5/15 Jensen v. Krauss CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G105272. LORETTA HOOK, Employee CLAIMANT. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Employer

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G105272. LORETTA HOOK, Employee CLAIMANT. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Employer BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G105272 LORETTA HOOK, Employee CLAIMANT MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Employer CCMSI, Insurance Carrier/TPA RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MAY 8,

More information