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. ADJ8714258
Regular
Apr 30, 2015

NESTOR HERNANDEZ vs. FSP INC. SERVICES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal and denied reconsideration. The defendant sought to credit payments made to the Employment Development Department against the 104-week temporary disability cap. The Board found the judge's prior clarification of a stipulation was a final order, making reconsideration the proper avenue, not removal. Since reconsideration was denied, the judge's interpretation that payments to EDD do not count against the 104-week cap remains in effect.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJStipulationTemporary Disability Indemnity104-week capLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)EDD reimbursementDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCAB
References
0
Case No. ADJ3722656 (BAK 0145213)
Regular
Jul 24, 2014

WILLIAM CASTO vs. GENE WATSON CONSTRUCTION, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY BY CHARTIS

This case concerns an applicant suffering severe burns who sought further temporary disability (TD) indemnity after the initial award expired. The Appeals Board overturned the WCJ's 104-week TD cap, finding the 240-week cap for severe burns applicable, extending TD entitlement to August 6, 2007. The Board also adopted the WCJ's calculation of the third-party credit but clarified its application based on the established total civil damages and defendant's comparative negligence. Consequently, the award was amended to reflect the extended TD period and the 240-week statutory cap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent and StationaryLabor Code Section 4656104-week cap240-week capSevere BurnsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
6
Case No. ADJ7935113
Regular
Apr 22, 2014

JOSE CHAVEZ vs. AFFENTRANGER & SONS DAIRY FARMS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant, Jose Chavez, sustained an industrial injury to his right arm. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award granting temporary disability indemnity, arguing it exceeded the 104-week statutory cap. However, the parties subsequently reached a stipulation resolving this issue, including the 104-week cap and EDD reimbursement. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original award, amending it to reflect the parties' stipulation regarding the temporary disability duration and EDD credit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardCow milkerIndustrial injuryRight armTotal temporary disability indemnity104-week capLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)Employment Development Department
References
0
Case No. ADJ4492292
Regular
Mar 29, 2010

WELDON PITTS vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

This case involves a dispute over temporary disability payments for an applicant who sustained a cumulative industrial injury. The applicant contended the WCJ erred by finding payments were made in this case and by incorrectly calculating the 104-week temporary disability cap. The defendant argued against awarding benefits due to an EDD lien and the applicant's voluntary removal from the labor market. The Board granted the applicant's petition, amended the findings to clarify that temporary disability payments were made in a separate case (ADJ6875920), and revised the commencement date for the 104-week cap in this case (ADJ4492292) to the first actual payment.

ADJ4492292ADJ6875920cumulative industrial injuryneckbackbilateral shouldershandsright kneetemporary disabilityreconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02959
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Weekes v. Tishman Tech. Corp.

Samuel Weekes, an employee, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at a construction site managed by Tishman Technologies Corporation. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied Weekes's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, also denying Weekes's motion for leave to renew. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that Tishman could be considered a statutory agent of the owner due to its control over safety. The court also found that Weekes's activity was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, thereby denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The denial of Weekes's motion for leave to renew was affirmed, and part of the appeal from the November 4, 2020 order was dismissed as academic.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationScaffold SafetyElevation HazardSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityTriable Issues of Fact
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. SRO 0132150
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

DAVID BLOOMQUIST vs. SIRI GRADING & PAVING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's argument that temporary disability payments exceeded the statutory 104-week limit. The Board clarified that the applicant's shoulder surgery did not constitute an "amputation" as defined by Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C), which is an exception to the limit. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level to determine the exact date temporary disability payments first commenced, as this is crucial for calculating the applicable 104-week cap.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardcumulative traumatemporary disability indemnitydate of commencementLabor Code section 4656(c)amputationtwo-year/104-week capseverancelimb
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04073
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Jagiello v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Czeslaw Jagiello had an established workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease that became disabling in 2017, in addition to a prior claim for World Trade Center site injuries, under which he received $400 weekly in temporary partial disability benefits. The dispute revolved around the amount of additional benefits for the occupational disease claim, with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially determining $480.71 weekly but capping the concurrent award at $801.32 weekly, leading to an award of $401.32 weekly for the occupational disease. Jagiello argued the statutory cap should be $870.61 weekly, thus seeking $470.61 weekly. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, clarifying that while the combined weekly benefit was statutorily capped at $870.61 under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6), the appropriate temporary partial disability award, being two-thirds of the difference between pre- and post-accident average weekly wages, was correctly limited to $801.32, which was two-thirds of his average weekly wages at the date of disablement.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTemporary Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory Maximum RatesAverage Weekly WageWorld Trade Center ClaimAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsBenefit Calculation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 915 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