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

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. ADJ312652 (STK 0204453)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

AMADOR CISNEROS vs. CBC FRAMING and VIRGINIA SURETY, adjusted by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED RESOURCES

This case involves a dispute over a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision to set aside a prior order and require the defendant to produce the claims adjuster for testimony. The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no abuse of discretion by the judge who properly used WCAB Rule § 10859 to rescind the prior order and allow for further proceedings. The defendant's arguments regarding the applicant's failure to produce the adjuster at trial were deemed premature as no order compelling appearance had been issued.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside FindingsWCJ DiscretionWCAB Rule 10859Claims AdjusterMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10843(b)AOE/COE
References
1
Case No. ADJ9103955
Regular
Aug 25, 2014

EMMANUEL BRISENO vs. CALTRANS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant, Caltrans, sought reconsideration of an award of temporary disability benefits. Caltrans argued the award should credit benefits already paid by the Employment Development Department (EDD) to prevent double recovery. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing that the award needed adjustment for the EDD's potential lien. Consequently, the Board amended the award to require the parties to adjust the benefit amount, taking into account the EDD's potential lien interest.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ9103955Emmanuel BrisenoCALTRANSPermissibly Self-InsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment Development Department (EDD)EDD LienDouble Recovery
References
0
Case No. ADJ7978937
Regular
Aug 26, 2014

KATHERINE JAMES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CSP KINGS COUNTY AT CORCORAN, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original award, admitting defendant's Exhibit E and adjusting the temporary disability indemnity rate. While affirming the finding of a psychiatric injury, the Board rescinded all penalties and sanctions previously awarded. Defendant's assertion of a good faith personnel action defense was deemed reasonable, thus precluding penalties for delayed payment. Temporary disability amounts are to be adjusted by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved for future disputes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPsychiatric InjuryGastrointestinal SystemDepressionAnxietyPanic AttacksLoss of AppetiteTemporary DisabilityPenalties
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02607 [204 AD3d 1297]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Perez v. Bed, Bath & Beyond

This case concerns an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a section 32 waiver agreement. Claimant Jose Perez sought to withdraw from the agreement, but the Board deemed his request untimely. However, the Board later amended its decision to allow 90 days for parties to negotiate a new agreement clarifying inconsistencies in the Medicare Set-Aside terms. The employer and its carrier appealed this amended decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was interlocutory and not a final resolution, thus not ripe for immediate appellate review.

Workers' Compensation LawSection 32 AgreementWaiver AgreementMedicare Set-AsideMSA AnnuityInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissedUntimely WithdrawalBoard ReviewRecord Development
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Ford

The claimant appealed decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits. The initial February 8, 1999 decision was superseded by a May 21, 2001 decision, which the court reviewed. The court found that the Board's denial of further training was reasonable because the claimant had already received suitable paralegal training under Labor Law § 599. The claimant left her paralegal employment to continue law school, rather than finding permanent work in the field for which she was already trained. Consequently, the court affirmed the May 21, 2001 decision and dismissed the appeal from the April 5, 1999 decision as moot.

Trade Adjustment AssistanceTAA BenefitsUnemployment InsuranceEligibilityVocational TrainingParalegal TrainingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFederal Trade Act
References
5
Case No. ADJ8332402, ADJ8336415
Regular
Oct 08, 2018

NESABEL DUMON vs. BED, BATH & BEYOND, ARCH INSURANCE

This case involves Nesabel Dumon's application for workers' compensation benefits against Bed, Bath & Beyond and Arch Insurance. The Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding the WCJ's decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Consequently, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENYWCJ reportadopted and incorporatedNESABEL DUMONBED BATH & BEYONDARCH INSURANCEADJ8332402ADJ8336415
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 140, Bedding, Curtain & Drapery Workers Union, United Furniture Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a temporary injunction against Local 140, a labor union, under Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act. The dispute arose after Sealy, Inc. revoked a franchise, leading to the discharge of employees from Sealy Brooklyn. These former employees, represented by Local 140, began picketing a Sealy New York showroom, demanding their jobs back. The NLRB petitioner argued that an object of the picketing was to force recognition of Local 140 as a bargaining agent, constituting an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(7)(C). However, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude that recognition was the primary objective of the picketing. Instead, it determined that the main purpose was to pressure Sealy to rehire the discharged employees. Therefore, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations BoardTemporary InjunctionPicketingUnion OrganizingUnfair Labor PracticeSection 10(l)Recognition PicketingCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Discharge
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 856 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