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. Dkt. # 6, Dkt. # 7
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Crayton v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals the denial of supplemental security income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2009, alleging inability to work due to various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The District Court reviews the Commissioner's decision, finding that while the ALJ's assessment of exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ failed to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) in analyzing non-exertional limitations. Consequently, the court remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for proper application of the PRT.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgePsychiatric Review TechniqueRFCExertional LimitationsNon-exertional LimitationsDepressionAnxiety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I

Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott, and Jay T. Holmes, retired Bausch & Lomb (B & L) executives and participants in the B & L Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (SERP I), challenged the termination of their monthly benefits and conversion to lump sums following a change of control at B & L. The court found that B & L Human Resources personnel acted as unauthorized fiduciaries in 2007 by interpreting the plan and terminating benefits. The subsequent 2008 decision by the Compensation Committee was also found flawed due to structural conflicts of interest, procedural violations, and abdication of fiduciary responsibility. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the termination of benefits and lump-sum payments violated ERISA and vacated both decisions.

ERISA LitigationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentConflict of InterestPlan AdministrationBenefit DenialChange of ControlLump Sum PaymentsProcedural Violations
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saltares v. Bowen

The plaintiff, Mr. Saltares, sought interim disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act after his case was remanded to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for further proceedings. Magistrate Naomi Reice Buchwald recommended denying the request, arguing that courts generally lack the authority to award interim benefits in "original entitlement" cases. Plaintiff objected, citing anticipated delays on remand due to the Administrative Law Judge's initial inadequate processing of his claim. District Judge Kram acknowledged the court's remedial power to grant interim benefits in instances of unreasonable delay caused by the Secretary. However, the Court ultimately denied the application, finding that despite the plaintiff's financial hardship and the reasons for remand, the delays in this particular case did not meet the threshold of "unreasonable delay" established by precedent.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActInterim benefitsRemandUnreasonable delayJudicial reviewAdministrative Law JudgeOriginal entitlement casesSouthern District of New YorkDistrict Court Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayden v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Loraine N. Hayden sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The District Court, presided over by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford, found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating the medical opinion of Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Shamsi. The ALJ failed to provide sufficient "good reasons" for assigning little weight to Dr. Shamsi's assessment of Plaintiff's mental limitations, particularly regarding her inability to manage stress and anticipated work absences. This error was deemed not harmless, as Dr. Shamsi's opinion of two absences per month would preclude the occupations identified by the vocational expert. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the Commissioner's motion denied, and the case remanded for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Treating Physician RuleMedical Opinion EvaluationMental Residual Functional CapacityRemand for Further ProceedingsVocational Expert TestimonyFederal Court Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beltrone Construction Co v. McGowan

Petitioner, a prime contractor for a public works project, challenged a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department found petitioner's subcontractor willfully underpaid prevailing wages and supplements, holding petitioner responsible under Labor Law § 223. Petitioner argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted the Department's collection of supplemental benefits, as the Department used a "line-item" method for calculating supplements. The court agreed, ruling that the Department was preempted from enforcing the supplement collection under its promulgated schedule because petitioner was not informed of a policy change to a permissible "total package" approach during the relevant period. Consequently, the determination was annulled, and the petition granted.

Labor LawPrevailing WageWage SupplementsERISA PreemptionPublic Works ContractSubcontractor LiabilityLine-Item MethodTotal Package ApproachAppellate ReviewAdministrative Determination
References
5
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1971

Claim of Wippert v. Peele Bros.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which ruled that a claimant widow was entitled to supplemental benefits without deducting social security benefits received from her own earnings. The employer and insurance carrier appealed this decision. The central issue was whether social security benefits, regardless of their source, should be offset against supplemental benefits under subdivision 9 of section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court found that the statute's language explicitly requires such an offset, irrespective of the social security benefits' originating source. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's determination, remitting the matter for recalculation of the supplemental benefit.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security OffsetSupplemental AllowancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBenefit ReductionLegislative HistoryClaimant WidowPublic PolicyBenefit Calculation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,282 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