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

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. ADJ13385386
Regular
Nov 17, 2020

ABRAHAM BERNAL vs. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the original decision regarding applicant Abraham Bernal's average weekly wage. The WCAB found the prior calculation of $\$1,383.39$ per week was erroneous as it diluted the applicant's earning capacity by using a lower hourly wage than his rate at the time of injury. The Board recalculated the average weekly wage based on actual hours worked, including overtime and holiday pay, at the applicant's established $\$27.00$ per hour rate. This resulted in an amended average weekly wage of $\$1,414.26$, increasing the temporary disability indemnity rate to $\$942.84$ per week.

ADJ13385386NIAGARA BOTTLING LLCSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANYVan Nuys District OfficePETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAVERAGE WEEKLY WAGESTEMPORARY DISABILITY INDEMNITYLABOR CODE § 4453(c)EARNING CAPACITYREGULAR WAGE
References
2
Case No. ADJ1036181 (LAO 0861182), ADJ1313689 (LAO 0861180), ADJ3257740 (LAO 0861181)
Regular
Jun 23, 2014

RONNIE C. EDGE vs. WORLD CITRUS WEST, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE

This case concerns a defendant's challenge to a WCJ's award of 12 additional hours of home health care. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding the defendant's argument regarding the timing of the award was not substantiated by the medical evidence. The Board substituted a new award granting four hours per day, three days per week of home health care for three months following the applicant's left knee surgery, as recommended by Dr. Sobol. The Board affirmed the finding of untimely utilization review and other awarded treatments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewJoint Findings of FactHome Health CareMedical TreatmentLeft Knee SurgerySubstantial EvidenceDr. SobolPulmonary Function TestingBiPAP Machine
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andujar v. More Candy Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding the calculation of a claimant’s average weekly wage following a compensable accident on September 14, 1971. The claimant, a four-day, 10-hour-per-day worker since December 15, 1970, had their average weekly wage computed using a 260 multiple under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, with the Board affirming the Referee’s decision based on the claimant being a 'full-time worker'. The appellate court found that subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 14 could not apply as they are restricted to five-day workers, and that only subdivision 3 was applicable. The court determined that using a 260 multiple merely because the claimant was a 'full-time worker' lacked statutory basis and support in the record. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for proper computation of a multiple pursuant to subdivision 3, recognizing the claimant's status as a four-day worker to ensure compensation reflects their true wage-earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation LawAverage Weekly WageWage Calculation260 MultipleFour-Day Work WeekFull-Time WorkerStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bentvena v. City & Suburban

The claimant sustained a work-related injury in July 2003, leading to an issue raised by the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier regarding voluntary withdrawal from the labor market due to refusal of a light-duty assignment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found that the claimant voluntarily withdrew, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this determination. On appeal by the employer and carrier, the court affirmed the Board's decision. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the employer's proposed three eight-hour workdays were inconsistent with the claimant's medical limitations of five hours per day, not exceeding 25 hours per week, as indicated by the treating chiropractor.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketLight-duty assignmentWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical limitationsChiropractor testimonySubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRefusal of workWork restrictions
References
4
Case No. ADJ7699249
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

DEREK DEMUN vs. SQUAW VALLEY SKI CORP.

This case involved applicant Derek Demun's workers' compensation claim against Squaw Valley Ski Corp. and its insurer, Safety National Casualty Corp. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the prior decision. The amendment clarifies that the applicant is entitled to 24-hour home health care for the first 60 days post-hospitalization, followed by indefinitely eight hours per day, provided by his parents. The Board also affirmed the award of central air conditioning and heating for the applicant's home.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDerek DemunSquaw Valley Ski Corp.Safety National Casualty Corp.Matrix Absence ManagementInc.ReconsiderationWCJ reportHome health careCraig Hospital
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1971

Claim of Pollak v. Robert Day, Inc.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded disability benefits to a waiter under the Disability Benefits Law, finding him to be a 'shape-up worker' concurrently employed by Creative Caterers, Inc. and Robert Day, Inc. The claimant fell ill in February 1970 and was hospitalized, having worked for both employers in the same calendar week. Appellants challenged the board's finding of concurrent employment, citing the claimant's sporadic work record and arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that concurrent employment and eligibility are questions of fact solely within the board's province, and its conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence. The court clarified that regular employment by the *same* employers within the same calendar week is not necessary; only regular and customary employment by more than one covered employer within the same week is required.

disability benefitsconcurrent employmentshape-up workerWorkmen's Compensation LawArticle 9substantial evidencequestion of factapportionmentemployer liabilityappellate review
References
0
Case No. ADJ9664433
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

DANA GRACE vs. PANINO SANTA YNEZ, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability due to an industrial injury sustained by Dana Grace as a server. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of the initial finding regarding applicant's average weekly earnings. The Board granted both petitions, amending the decision to establish applicant's average weekly wage at $553.50, based on a 40-hour workweek at $11.50 per hour plus a meal allowance. This revised wage establishes a permanent total disability indemnity rate of $369.00 per week, before cost of living adjustments.

Average Weekly EarningsEarning CapacityPermanent Total DisabilityReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryWCJPetitions for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4659(c)Evidence Code Section 1401(a)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tay-Kwamya

The Debtor, Tay-Kwamya, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 18, 2006. The Chapter 7 Trustee requested dismissal due to the Debtor's failure to provide all required payment advices within 60 days of filing, as mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(l)(B)(iv) and General Order M-315. The Debtor explained that two pay stubs were missing but that her other submitted pay stubs and sworn affidavit provided sufficient "other evidence of payment." The Court found that the Debtor had met the statutory requirements, considering her fixed hourly wage and the likely minimal impact of the missing documents on creditors. Consequently, the Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee's request for dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor's DutiesPayment AdvicesSection 521(a)(1)(B)(iv)Automatic DismissalGeneral Order M-315Evidentiary RequirementsTrustee RequestDismissal Denied
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,473 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