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
Dec 22, 1992

Biszick v. Ninnie Construction Corp.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Duchess County, which granted summary judgment motions by several defendants, including Halmar Construction Corp. and International Business Machines Corporation. These motions dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, specifically causes of action based on Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly dismissed as it relied on general safety standards, which are insufficient under this section. The Labor Law § 200 claim was also correctly dismissed because the alleged defect originated from a subcontractor's methods, and the defendants lacked supervisory control over the operation. The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' remaining arguments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Construction SafetyWorkplace SafetyNondelegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate AffirmationNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2011

Claim of Wiess v. Mittal

Claimant, a steel worker from 1965 to 2008, filed an occupational hearing loss claim. His initial employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, was succeeded by Arcelor Mittal. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned the award based on the claimant's length of service with each employer. Bethlehem appealed, arguing Arcelor had not satisfied notice requirements and challenging the apportionment method. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Bethlehem had actual knowledge of the claimant's hearing loss through annual testing and credible testimony, and affirmed apportionment based on length of service. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no error in the Board's findings regarding actual knowledge or apportionment method.

Occupational hearing lossApportionmentActual knowledgeNotice requirementsEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-eeMedical evidenceBurden of proofAdverse inferenceIndustrial injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wills v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jaime Wills initiated a putative class action against RadioShack Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law regarding overtime pay calculation. Wills contended that RadioShack's practice of paying performance-based bonuses to its store managers rendered its use of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method unlawful, requiring instead a higher 'time-and-a-half' rate. RadioShack moved to dismiss, asserting its compliance with NYLL, which aligns with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court determined that performance-based bonuses were compatible with the FWW method and that a 2011 DOL Final Ruling did not alter this interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Fluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayPerformance BonusesNew York Labor LawFair Labor Standards ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCollateral EstoppelWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. ADJ2678977 (VNO 0516619) ADJ2789939 (VNO 0516618)
Regular
Jul 26, 2017

THOMAS BELLISSIMO vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AIG

This case involves two insurers, Zurich and AIG, disputing liability for a worker's cumulative trauma injury. The Arbitrator initially set the liability period as July 4, 2004, to July 3, 2005, and apportioned fault based on days worked. Both insurers sought reconsideration, with AIG challenging the date of injury and allocation method, and Zurich arguing for apportionment based on exposure arduousness. The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's pro rata allocation based on days worked, but amended the liability period to June 28, 2004, to June 28, 2005, based on the last date of injurious exposure.

Labor Code section 5500.5cumulative trauma injuryliability periodapportionmentpro ratadate of injuryLabor Code section 5412disabilityinjurious exposuresuccessive employers
References
4
Case No. ADJ10489999
Regular
Feb 01, 2019

Sean Lawson vs. Zenith Insurance Company

This case involves a dispute over the permanent disability rating for applicant Sean Lawson's low back injury. The defendant, Zenith Insurance Company, argues that the Range of Motion (ROM) method used by the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) was inappropriate, and the Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) method should have been applied as there was only one level of radiculopathy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's finding that the ROM method was appropriate based on the QME's expert opinion and the AMA Guides' provision for its use with multi-level involvement. However, one Commissioner dissented, believing the DRE method was mandated given the lack of evidence for multi-level radiculopathy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNon-industrial factorsDiagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) methodRange of Motion (ROM) methodQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)AMA GuidesMultilevel radiculopathy
References
1
Case No. ADJ9344211
Regular
Dec 01, 2017

Patricia Preston vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, challenging the permanent disability rating primarily based on the chosen medical evaluation method. The applicant argued the Range-of-Motion (ROM) method, favored by her treating physician, should have been used instead of the Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) method employed by a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). Additionally, she contended that her vocational expert's opinion supported a finding of total permanent disability. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision, finding the QME's DRE rating supported by substantial evidence and the applicant's vocational evidence insufficient to prove total disability. A dissenting opinion argued that findings of multi-level spinal involvement supported the use of the ROM method for a potentially higher rating and questioned the QME's justification for choosing DRE.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatricia PrestonLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ9344211Permanent Disability RatingRange-of-Motion MethodDiagnosis-Related Estimates MethodApportionmentDr. Fenton
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of House v. International Talc Co.

Arthur House suffered a compensable occupational disease in 1973, resulting in permanent total disability and received workers' compensation benefits based on his 1973 average weekly wage. He died in 1995 from lung disease. His widow, the claimant, filed for death benefits, contending the benefits should be calculated based on the average weekly wage of a comparable employee for the year preceding his death (March 17, 1994, to March 17, 1995). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board, however, determined that death benefits should be calculated based on House's average weekly wage from the date of his original injury, April 5, 1973. This Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 2, 14, and 38 to establish that the date of the original injury or accident is the basis for computing both disability and death benefits, not the date of death.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationDate of DisablementAppellate DivisionTalcosisClaimant's Widow
References
6
Case No. ADJ6820630
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

MARK COLLINS vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The WCAB dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. The Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal to rescind the WCJ's order vacating submission and appointing a new physician. The WCJ erred by refusing to accept the AME's rating based on the Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) method, as physicians have discretion to use the most accurate method. However, the AME's own deposition testimony indicated that the Range of Motion (ROM) method, mandated by the WCJ, would yield a higher impairment rating. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to obtain a permanent disability rating using the existing record and potentially consulting a DEU rater.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Range of Motion (ROM) methodDiagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) methodAmerican Medical Association's Guides (AMA Guides)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)cumulative traumaspinal injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ1728771 (LBO 0316743) ADJ1516565 (LBO 0860347)
Regular
Sep 27, 2012

Kay Rodriguez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, Administered By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Applicant's claim. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report, which found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) failed to adequately explain why an alternative impairment rating method (grip loss) was more accurate than the standard method (carpal tunnel syndrome) according to the AMA Guides. This lack of reasoning rendered the AME's opinion unsubstantial evidence for determining the Applicant's impairment. Therefore, the Board upheld the initial finding based on carpal tunnel syndrome, not grip loss.

Kay RodriguezLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundOrder Denying ReconsiderationAlmaraz-Guzman casesAMA GuidesWhole Person Impairment (WPI)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)substantial evidenceActivities of Daily Living (ADLs)
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 6,105 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