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

Selective Insurance Company of America v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, a group of insurance carriers, challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board’s refusal to issue them a credit or refund for assessments paid in excess of surcharges collected from their policyholders between 2001 and 2009. This discrepancy arose due to different methodologies used to calculate assessments (by the Board based on "total written premiums") and surcharges (by carriers based on "standard premiums"), resulting in some carriers collecting more in surcharges (windfall carriers) and others paying more in assessments (shortfall carriers), like the petitioners. In 2009, the Legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Law to align the assessment methodology with "standard premiums" and authorized the Board to collect excess funds from windfall carriers. The amendment also allowed the Board to issue credits or refunds for "overpayments made to the fund." Petitioners interpreted this as applicable to shortfall carriers, but the Board denied their request, contending "overpayments" referred only to those made by windfall carriers. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding its interpretation rational and consistent with the legislative intent, which was focused on deficit reduction and did not provide for relief to shortfall carriers.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance CarriersAssessments and SurchargesStatutory InterpretationCredit/RefundOverpaymentsShortfall CarriersWindfall CarriersAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP v. Frankel

This case involves petitioners challenging a ruling that their backup power equipment is assessable as real property and contesting tax assessments on that equipment. The petitioners argued that the equipment should not be considered real property under Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12) (f) because it falls under an exception for movable machinery or equipment. They also contended that the equipment should be exempt as telecommunications equipment and that assessments were void due to lack of timely notice. The court modified the lower court's decision, declaring that the backup power equipment is assessable as real property and that the assessments are not nullities for lack of notice.

real propertytax assessmentbackup power equipmentpower generating apparatusmovable machinerytelecommunications equipmentRPTLstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, consisting of group self-insured trusts (GSITs), initiated a proceeding to challenge assessments levied by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (former [f]). They argued that the statute was inapplicable to GSITs and that the Board failed to meet statutory prerequisites for the assessments. The Supreme Court annulled the assessments on the grounds that the Board failed to satisfy prerequisites, although it deemed the statute applicable to GSITs. Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court’s finding that the statute was applicable. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, determining that petitioners were not aggrieved by the judgment as they had received the relief sought—the annulment of the assessments. The court also clarified that collateral estoppel would not apply to the interpretation of the statute, which is a pure question of law, and that the discovery issue was academic.

Group Self-Insured TrustsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAssessmentsAnnulmentAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Declaratory Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. NO. 03-98-00566-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1999

Texas Department of Insurance Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Texas Public Finance Authority v. American Home Assurance Company and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's judgment in a tax refund case involving workers' compensation insurance. Appellees, two insurance companies, sued the State for a partial refund of taxes paid under protest, contending that a 1993 amendment to the Texas Insurance Code, Article 5.68(b), which expanded the tax base for certain maintenance taxes, did not apply to a separate surcharge tax. The amendment explicitly stated its application to Article 5.68 and Labor Code Section 403.002, but made no mention of the surcharge statute, Article 5.76-5. The appellate court found the language clear and unambiguous, concluding that the legislature's omission of the surcharge statute was deliberate and that the expanded definition of 'gross workers' compensation insurance premiums' applied only to the specified articles. Therefore, the State's assessment of the surcharge based on modified premiums was incorrect, and the district court's order for a refund was upheld.

Workers' CompensationInsurance TaxStatutory InterpretationTax BaseDeductible PlansTexas Insurance CodeTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGross Premiums
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

UNITED FOOD AND COMMER. WORKERS UNIONS AND FOOD EMPLOYEES BENEFIT FUND v. DeBuono

The United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Food Employees Benefit Fund, headquartered in California, challenged New York’s Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) surcharge system. The Fund argued that the surcharges violated the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and were actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. New York’s HCRA imposes surcharges on patient care, with higher rates for payors not registered with the state, a category the Fund fell into. The Fund contended that these additional costs were punitive and disproportionately affected out-of-state payors. The defendants maintained that the system was not discriminatory and offered a practical alternative. The court, acting sua sponte, assessed its subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act (TIA). It concluded that the HCRA surcharges constituted 'taxes' for TIA purposes and that New York State provided an adequate remedy through declaratory judgment under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3001. Consequently, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Health Care Reform ActHCRA SurchargesTax Injunction ActSubject Matter JurisdictionCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseERISARegulatory FeesState TaxationFederal Abstention
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cedeno v. Pacoa

The Workers' Compensation Board assessed a $500 monetary penalty against claimant's counsel for an unsubstantiated request to change the hearing venue from Queens/Nassau to White Plains, Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially assessed $250. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support for the assessment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The court ruled that the Board had authority to increase the penalty and overlooked a procedural defect regarding who filed the appeal, treating it as filed by counsel.

Workers' CompensationVenue ChangeCounsel FeesMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural MotionUnpreserved ArgumentSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlucci v. Omnibus Printing Co.

The claimant, a pressman, developed various respiratory, pulmonary, and cardiac disorders during his employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board later determined a permanent moderate partial disability and reduced the compensation award, which the claimant appealed. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board had incorrectly relied on inapplicable medical guidelines for low back total disability when assessing the claimant's condition. The case was subsequently remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a proper re-assessment of the medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittalDisability AssessmentRespiratory DisordersCardiac DisordersPulmonary DisordersNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Workers Colony Corp. v. Mills

The order was affirmed with $20 costs and disbursements, and no opinion was provided. Judges Dore, Cohn, Callahan, and Peek were present. Presiding Judge Martin, P.J., dissented from the decision, voting to reverse the order and reinstate the assessments made by the Board of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York.

Costs and DisbursementsAppellate ReviewTax AssessmentsDissenting OpinionJudicial Panel DecisionNew York CityAppeals
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic Insurance Co. v. Oakley

This case concerns an appeal by Texas insurance companies contesting retaliatory insurance taxes assessed by the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance for the years 1974-1977. The plaintiff companies, writing fire, casualty, and workers' compensation insurance in Tennessee, argued that Texas's effective tax rate on gross premium receipts, after considering investment credits, was lower than Tennessee's, thus negating the basis for a retaliatory tax. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that for retaliatory tax purposes, only the basic tax rates of the states should be compared, not rates after accounting for investment credits. The Court concluded that Texas's basic rate of 3.85% was indeed higher than Tennessee's 2%, justifying the 1.85% retaliatory tax, and also upheld the assessment of penalties.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance LawGross Premium TaxInvestment CreditsStatutory InterpretationTaxationForeign CorporationsAppellate ReviewTennessee Supreme CourtTax Penalties
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,289 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