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 Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
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 The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the WCLJ improperly rescinded the permanent wage determination and referred the matter back.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 Given this subsequent decision, which effectively rescinded the September 2003 decision under appeal, and the claimant's failure to appeal the November 2003 decision, the issue of her average weekly wage was deemed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
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471 v. P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc.

The Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 471, AFL-CIO, petitioned the court to confirm two arbitration awards against P. & J.G. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Albany Thruway House. The dispute arose from the employer's discharge of two employees, Ann Russo and Mary O’Brien, who were members of the Union's collective bargaining unit. The first arbitration award, dated June 15, 1988, found the discharges were not for just cause and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Following the employer's failure to pay back wages despite reinstatement, a second arbitration award, dated September 14, 1989, quantified the back wages for the two employees. The employer contested the confirmation, citing lack of evidentiary support for the arbitrator's decision, alleged partiality of the arbitrator, and financial inability to pay the awards. The court, applying a limited scope of review for arbitration awards, rejected all of the employer's arguments. Ultimately, the court confirmed both arbitration awards and ordered the employer to pay the back wages, along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the Union, finding the employer's refusal to comply unjustified.

Arbitration awardLabor Management Relations ActCollective bargaining agreementBack wagesEmployee dischargeJust causeAttorney's feesJudicial reviewArbitrator partialityFinancial inability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griggs v. Sands

This consolidated case addresses whether a back-pay award from an arbitrator, under a collective bargaining agreement, constitutes 'wages' under the Tennessee Employment Security Law, thereby entitling the Department of Employment Security to a refund of unemployment benefits paid to discharged employees. Five employees of Heil-Quaker Corporation were discharged, received unemployment benefits, and later were reinstated with back pay, from which the arbitrator deducted the benefits. The Chancery Courts of Giles and Marshall Counties ruled against the Department, holding back pay was not wages. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, deeming back-pay awards as 'wages' that disqualify recipients from unemployment benefits and affirming the Department's authority to seek reimbursement.

unemployment compensationback paywagesTennessee Employment Security Lawarbitration awardcollective bargaining agreementreimbursement of benefitswrongful dischargeemployee eligibilitylabor dispute
References
18
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

Emes Heating & Plumbing Contractors, Inc. v. McGowen

Petitioner, a construction company, entered a public works contract but was investigated by the Department of Labor for failing to pay prevailing wages and supplements. After petitioner failed to provide payroll records, an audit and subsequent hearing found that petitioner willfully violated Labor Law § 220 (3) and owed $37,751.81 in back wages, plus interest and a 25% civil penalty. Petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging procedural errors and due process violations. The court rejected all of petitioner's contentions, including arguments against evidence admission and the finding of willfulness, which was supported by prior violations. The determination against the petitioner was ultimately confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing WageLabor Law ViolationsPublic Works ContractUnderpayment of WagesCivil PenaltyCPLR Article 78Willful ViolationDue ProcessHearing OfficerAudit Findings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Central City Roofing Co., Inc. v. Musolino

The case involved a petitioner's willful failure to pay prevailing wages and supplements for a school roof installation project. The petitioner used an expired wage rate schedule, leading to an investigation by the Department of Labor (DOL). The DOL found a willful violation and imposed a civil penalty and interest. The court affirmed the finding of willfulness, the imputation of liability to an affiliated entity (Pyramid Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc.), and the calculation of back pay for an underpaid employee (Ryan Ernestine). However, the court annulled the maximum 25% civil penalty, remitting the matter for reconsideration, deeming it disproportionate given the lack of bad faith and prior violations.

Prevailing WagesWage and Hour ViolationWillful Non-paymentCivil PenaltyImputed LiabilityAffiliated EntitiesBack PayInterest AssessmentJudicial ReviewLabor Law § 220
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Busby

This case concerns the eligibility for unemployment benefits after a wrongful discharge and subsequent reinstatement with back pay. Sara Busby was fired from Farm Pac Kitchens, Inc. after a fight, but an arbitrator ruled her discharge wrongful and ordered reinstatement and back wages. During the period between her discharge and reinstatement, Busby received $234.00 in unemployment compensation. The Texas Employment Commission later deemed this an overpayment and ordered repayment, prompting an appeal by Busby and Farm Pac. The central legal question was whether the back pay constituted 'wages' under the Unemployment Compensation Act, thereby impacting her 'total unemployment' status. The court, referencing prior cases, determined that the remuneration was indeed wages and that Busby was not 'totally unemployed' during the period. Consequently, the trial court's judgment, which favored Busby, was reversed, and the Commission's decision to order repayment was affirmed.

unemployment benefitswrongful dischargeback paywagestotal unemploymentgrievance procedurearbitrationTexas Employment Commissioncollective bargaining agreementjudicial review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,831 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