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. 2021 NY Slip Op 03888 [195 AD3d 1270]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2021

Matter of Spence v. State Univ. of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning a salary increase for nurses at Stony Brook University Hospital, initiated by the State University of New York. Petitioners, including Wayne Spence and the New York State Public Employees Federation, argued that the salary adjustments violated Education Law and Civil Service Law due to an inadequate study, and Executive Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act due to disparate impact on older nurses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the study sufficient and the age discrimination claims procedurally deficient. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the study was representative, the nonuniform pay differential was permissible under Education Law, and the age discrimination claims failed because petitioners did not file with the EEOC and the pay adjustments were based on a legitimate non-age factor.

Wage ratesPay differentialsNurse salariesAge discriminationCPLR article 78State University of New YorkPublic Employees FederationStony Brook University HospitalEducation Law § 355-aCivil Service Law § 130
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Lexington Center

The claimant, injured in 1991 at age 20, was classified with a permanent partial disability and received a wage expectancy adjustment based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). In 2001, after back surgery, he became temporarily totally disabled. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the initial decision, ruling that the future wage expectancy adjustment should not be applied during the period of temporary total disability. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that the wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) applies equally to periods of temporary and permanent disability if the worker would reasonably have expected higher wages during that time, especially given the claimant's age of 31 during his temporary total disability. The court found the Board abused its discretion and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation of the statute.

Wage ExpectancyPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 14 (5)RemandBack Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
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. ADJ9150217
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

Raffi Khandikian vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case concerns applicant Raffi Khandikian's eligibility for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits based on a cumulative trauma injury to his heart. The central dispute is whether the 35% permanent disability threshold for SIBTF eligibility, as established by Labor Code section 4751, should be calculated before or after an adjustment for diminished future earning capacity (DFEC). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, finding that the DFEC adjustment *should* be included in the calculation, as Labor Code section 4751 only excludes adjustments for age and occupation. Consequently, the WCAB amended the prior decision to find the applicant met the SIBTF threshold and returned the case for benefit calculation. A dissenting opinion argued that DFEC should be excluded, relying on statutory interpretation and precedent that emphasized medical impairment.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFLabor Code section 4751Permanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentWPIDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECAgreed Medical ExaminerAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
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. LBO 0366043
Regular
Jul 02, 2008

STEVEN DUGAN vs. COCA-COLA, Permissibly Self-Insured, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a calculation error. The Board found that the applicant's permanent disability rating should be adjusted for his actual age of 47, not the older age group used by the initial judge. Consequently, the permanent disability rating was reduced from 34% to 31%.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityAge AdjustmentIndustrial InjuryFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation JudgeAdjusting AgentSelf-InsuredAttorney's Fees
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,353 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