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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Claimant sustained a work-related knee injury in November 2002. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage at $398.49 by applying Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) and (4), as the claimant did not work a standard five or six-day week. The employer appealed, arguing improper statutory application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board correctly utilized Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3) to determine annual average earnings and subsequently Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (4) to establish the average weekly wage.

Work-related injuryAverage weekly wage calculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Statutory interpretationKnee injuryBoard decision affirmedWage calculation methodsAppellate reviewEmployer appealWorkers' Compensation benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The claimant sustained work-related injuries to both hands in 2004 and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the average weekly wage at $447.10 using a 260-multiple. The employer appealed, arguing for a lower wage based on actual earnings. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined a miscalculation occurred and established the average weekly wage at $343.92, applying a 200-multiple under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) because the claimant did not work substantially the whole year. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the 200-multiple accurately reflected the claimant's earning capacity, as she was a full-time employee who did not voluntarily limit her availability.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageWage CalculationSection 14MultiplierEarning CapacityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionOccupational DiseaseNew York
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1997

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The claimant, a private preschool teacher, suffered a compensable injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1), asserting she worked “substantially the whole of the year” despite her 41-week annual employment. The employer contended this was irrational, arguing that predictable seasonal layoffs should be factored into the annual earnings calculation, preventing her from receiving benefits equivalent to a full-time, full-year employee. The court agreed, holding that the formula in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) was inapplicable when seasonal layoffs are a known incident of employment. Therefore, the average weekly wage should be calculated under subdivisions (3) and (4) of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14. The Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageSeasonal EmploymentRemittiturStatutory InterpretationSection 14Appellate DivisionWage CalculationEmployment DurationBoard Decision Reversal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Claimant, classified with a permanent partial disability after a 1994 injury, received reduced earnings benefits. In 2002, the State Insurance Fund (SIF) sought to terminate these benefits, arguing claimant's post-injury corporate profits should be included in his wage earning capacity. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially reduced the award, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining claimant's average weekly wage based on W-2s and tax returns, separating profits from earnings. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that business profits are not considered earnings for Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) purposes and upholding the Board's factual determination as supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageReduced Earnings BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityCorporate ProfitsWage Earning CapacityTax ReturnsWorkers’ Compensation Law § 15(5-a)Appellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

A claimant, a waitress, suffered a fractured hip and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Her case was established for a work-related injury, and a hearing was held to determine her average weekly wage, specifically regarding tip income. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage as $111.30 based on reported salary and tips. The claimant appealed, contending that unreported tip income of $266 should have been included, which would raise her average weekly wage to $199.97. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that Workers' Compensation Law § 14 and 12 NYCRR 357.1 [c] mandate that tip valuation be based on amounts reported to the employer, absent a specific agreement.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTip IncomeUnreported IncomeWage CalculationWaitressFractured HipBoard Decision AppealStatutory InterpretationNYCRR
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1977

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

A claimant, employed as a physical education teacher and track/football coach by the Utica City School District, sustained an injury in August 1970. His average weekly wage was calculated to include his coaching stipend. Following his injury, he returned to his teaching role with restrictions that prevented him from coaching. Despite subsequent salary increments resulting in a higher overall salary than his pre-injury average weekly wage, the claimant contended he was experiencing reduced earnings due to the loss of his coaching allowance. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the referee affirmed there were no reduced earnings, concluding that his teaching and coaching constituted a single, integrated employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationDual EmploymentSingle EmploymentCoaching StipendUtica City School DistrictWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DecisionInjury in Course of Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case focuses on determining the average weekly wage for plaintiff Gene Bradshaw to calculate workmen's compensation benefits. Bradshaw, an independent contractor for Champion International Corporation, was required to pay for workmen's compensation coverage through defendant American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, with premiums deducted from his pulpwood earnings. The core dispute arose from American Mutual's attempt to reduce Bradshaw's gross earnings by various expenses (labor, equipment, etc.) to calculate his average weekly wage, a method Bradshaw contested. The trial court and subsequently the appellate court affirmed that Bradshaw was entitled to maximum benefits, emphasizing that the insurance premiums were based on gross earnings and the statute did not differentiate between gross and net earnings for wage computation, thereby rejecting the proposed deductions. The court found that where it's impracticable to compute average weekly wages, it should consider what a person in similar employment in the same district would earn.

Workmen's CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorGross EarningsNet EarningsInsurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionTimber IndustryPulpwood Harvesting
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiff, a part-time security guard with a ninth-grade education, injured his neck, back, and shoulder after slipping on ice. The Chancellor awarded temporary total disability, medical expenses, and 40% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, calculating his average weekly wage based on a 40-hour week at federal minimum wage. On appeal, the Defendant challenged both the disability award and the wage calculation. The Supreme Court affirmed the 40% permanent partial disability award, finding material evidence to support it. However, the Court reversed the average weekly wage determination, ruling that it should be based on actual part-time earnings, not a hypothetical full-time wage, and that government housing subsidies cannot be used to compute earnings. The case was remanded for recalculation of compensation based on average weekly earnings of $43.07.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WagePart-time EmploymentMedical TestimonyLay TestimonyGovernment SubsidyWage CalculationDisability AwardSlip and Fall
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,023 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