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

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1997

Till v. Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc.

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

Claim of Salinas v. Diner

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

Fletcher v. Wegmans

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

Claim of Kellish v. Kellish Tire Sales, Inc.

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1999, applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2001. The Workers' Compensation Board initially set his average weekly wage at $126, which was based on his part-time employment where he worked one day a week and received $126 plus health insurance. The claimant appealed, arguing that his average weekly wage should be calculated under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) and that health insurance payments should be included. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the initial finding. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his work availability. The court also held that health insurance payments are not part of the definition of wages under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (9).

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WagePart-time EmploymentVoluntary LimitationHealth InsuranceWage CalculationAppellate ReviewNew York LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Law § 14
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reasoner v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

This appellate decision addresses whether the Workers' Compensation Board correctly calculated the claimant's average weekly wage. The employer and carrier argued that due to the claimant's limited employment as an MVRSAB member, the compensation rate should be based on actual earnings, not the 200 multiple outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board determined that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) nor (2) was applicable, thus applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). It also found no evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited participation in the labor market, based on testimony of availability and continued business operation. The court affirmed the Board's calculation.

average weekly wageworkers' compensation lawcompensation rateemployment limitationlabor marketstatutory interpretationappellate reviewMVRSAB member
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

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

Claim of Alund v. Malt River Brewing Co.

Claimant was injured on October 28, 1999, and her workers' compensation claim was established with a tentative average weekly wage of $170.49. This wage was later permanently established by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) on July 26, 2001, but the WCLJ then reversed the decision, making it "without prejudice." The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the WCLJ improperly rescinded the permanent wage determination and referred the matter back. Claimant appealed this Board decision. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued another decision on November 3, 2003, closing the claimant's case due to a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market prior to the initial case establishment. Given this subsequent decision, which effectively rescinded the September 2003 decision under appeal, and the claimant's failure to appeal the November 2003 decision, the issue of her average weekly wage was deemed moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageMootnessAppealBoard DecisionVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketRescissionJudicial ReviewProcedural Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barnard v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.

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
Showing 1-10 of 3,491 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