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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MON 0318706
Regular
Jul 11, 2008

EDGAR BENITEZ vs. IRISH COMMUNICATIONS, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns the appropriate permanent disability rating schedule. The applicant argues the 1997 schedule applies due to his physician indicating permanent disability before January 1, 2005, an exception to the 2005 schedule's use. The Board granted reconsideration, agreeing that the physician's report finding the applicant eligible for vocational rehabilitation constituted an indication of permanent disability, thus triggering the 1997 schedule. The matter is returned to the trial level for rating under the 1997 schedule and subsequent issuance of a decision.

Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code Section 4660(d)Primary Treating PhysicianVocational RehabilitationComprehensive Medical-Legal ReportPermanent and Stationary StatusGenlyte Group v. ZavalaZenith v. CuginiVera v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Agreed Medical Evaluator
References
3
Case No. ADJ1188182 (SFO 481756)
Regular
Mar 02, 2009

LELEON KIZINE vs. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that rated the applicant's permanent disability using the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (1997 PDRS). The defendant argued that the 2005 PDRS should apply, and the WCAB agreed that no exception to its use was properly established. The case is returned to the trial level, and parties are relieved of prior stipulations regarding the rating schedules due to intervening precedent in *Almaraz* and *Ogilvie*. This will allow for further proceedings considering these new legal interpretations.

Permanent Disability Rating Schedule1997 PDRS2005 PDRSAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 4660(d)ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerRobert Steiner M.D.Operative Note
References
9
Case No. ADJ6879193
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

KATHERINE LAU vs. CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN and ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the application of the 1997 vs. 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedules. The Board reversed the WCJ's finding, determining there was insufficient pre-2005 medical evidence of permanent disability to apply the 1997 schedule. Consequently, the Board applied the 2005 schedule, reducing the applicant's permanent disability rating from 29% to 12%. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the record supported the use of the 1997 schedule based on pre-2005 indications of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability Rating1997 Schedule2005 ScheduleLabor Code Section 4660(d)Comprehensive Medical-Legal ReportTreating Physician ReportIndustrial Injury
References
4
Case No. ADJ1357359 (ANA 0384919) ADJ2070955 (ANA 0381261) ADJ2274268 (ANA 0381264) ADJ1962006 (ANA 0381265)
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JOSE RIVERA vs. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, ARROWWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case concerns the proper rating schedule for Jose Rivera's multiple industrial injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the administrative law judge erred by applying the 1997 rating schedule to all injuries. Specifically, the Board determined that the 2005 rating schedule should apply to the lumbar spine injury, as the medical report cited did not indicate permanent disability. However, a report from November 2004 did indicate permanent disability for the left lower extremity injury, thus allowing the use of the 1997 schedule for that specific injury. The Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJose RiveraCentral Freight LinesArrowwood IndemnityJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityLumbar SpinePsycheLeft WristLeft Foot
References
2
Case No. ADJ15329380
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

BERTHA VALERIO vs. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; XL INSURANCE

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from August 5, 2025, concerning an injury sustained by applicant Bertha Valerio on September 9, 2021. The F&A found that applicant's injury was AOE/COE, defendant failed to prove improper treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN), and lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreting, Inc. established their market rate for interpreting services. Defendant contended that medical treatment and interpreter services were unreasonable due to treatment outside the MPN and failure to adhere to MTUS/ACOEM guidelines, and that the market rate for interpreter services was not properly established. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that defendant failed to sustain its burden of proof on the MPN issue, the MTUS/ACOEM guideline issue was not raised at trial, and lien claimant properly established their market rate.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Provider NetworkMPNRequests for AuthorizationRFAsLien ClaimantMarket RateLabor Code Section 4600
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2002

O'Connor v. Spencer (1997) Investment Ltd. Partnership

Patrick O'Connor was injured after falling from a six-feet-tall Baker scaffold while performing demolition work for GTI Harbor & Trucking & Rigging, Inc., on premises owned by Spencer (1997) Investment Ltd. Partnership and its general partner, Spencer Realty, Inc. O'Connor and his wife subsequently commenced an action against the appellants, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation exclusivity and non-liability under the Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court denied their motion in its entirety. On appeal, the order was modified: claims based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 were dismissed, while the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims was affirmed.

Scaffold AccidentDemolition InjuriesWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Division DecisionPremises LiabilitySafety RegulationsGravity-Related Accident
References
14
Case No. SAC 0315996, SAC 0313749
Regular
Feb 13, 2008

MICHAEL BEIN vs. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition and denied the defendant's petition, amending the prior order. The Board determined that the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule applies to the applicant's cancer claim, not the 2005 schedule. The case is returned for further proceedings to issue rating instructions and a decision on permanent disability consistent with the 1997 schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCancerHeart InjuryPermanent DisabilityRating ScheduleAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 4660(d)Labor Code Section 4664Apportionment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,091 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