Scroggins v. Industrial Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining a claimant did not present comparative evidence because he did not present “new, additional, or previously undiscovered” evidence showing a change in his neck and shoulder injury after his claim closed
• despite erroneous findings about sufficiency of medical reports, alternate findings sufficient to support the award

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).