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

Anani v. CVS RX SERVICES, INC.

Salah Anani, a former pharmacist, sued CVS RX Services, Inc. alleging unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Anani, classified as a bi-weekly salaried pharmacist, received a base salary and additional premium pay for hours exceeding 44 per week. He contended he was misclassified as exempt and was entitled to time-and-a-half overtime. CVS argued Anani was properly exempt under the FLSA's professional and highly compensated employee provisions. The court determined Anani met the 'learned professional' duties test and the central issue was the salary basis test. The court concluded that Anani's compensation scheme, which included a guaranteed base salary and premium pay for additional hours, adhered to FLSA salary basis requirements and associated regulations. Consequently, the court granted CVS's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Anani's complaint.

FLSA exemptionOvertime compensationSalary basis testHighly compensated employee exemptionPharmacist exemptionProfessional employeeSummary judgmentNew York Labor LawPremium payWage and hour
References
42
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04944 [162 AD3d 1777]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Matter of Town of Tonawanda (Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Assn.)

This case involves an arbitration matter between the Town of Tonawanda, as Respondent, and the Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Association, as Appellants. The Appellants' motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The decision was rendered on June 29, 2018.

ArbitrationMotion to appealLeave to appealDenialAppellate practiceLabor lawPublic employmentCollective bargainingFourth DepartmentCourt of Appeals (denied)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 323 v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beechwood Sanitarium v. Perales

A residential health care facility challenged the Department of Social Services' (DSS) retroactive Medicaid reimbursement reductions for 1980-1982. The facility contested the disallowance of 1978 base year salaries, arguing DSS failed to apply an inflation trend factor; the court found DSS had jurisdiction over this. The court upheld DSS's determinations regarding 1980 base year salary disallowances and the rejection of accrued unused sick leave. Additionally, challenges to disallowances of automobile operating and depreciation expenses were rejected due to insufficient documentation.

Medicaid ReimbursementResidential Health Care FacilitySalary DisallowanceAudit ReportInflation Trend FactorDepartment of Health RegulationsDepartment of Social Services JurisdictionSick Leave AccrualOperating ExpensesDepreciation Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ9126761
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

Jennifer James vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Jennifer James, a police officer injured on duty, who sought additional benefits under Labor Code Section 4850. The core dispute is whether Section 4850 benefits, providing a leave of absence without loss of salary for up to one year, should be paid for a calendar year or until the equivalent of a full year's salary has been received. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, ruling that the one-year limitation is based on the duration of payments, not the total salary amount. A dissenting opinion argued that the intent of Section 4850 is to ensure no loss of salary, thus allowing benefits to continue until the equivalent of a full year's salary is paid, especially for injured public safety officers.

Labor Code section 4850temporary partial disabilitymodified dutiespolice officerwage loss benefitssalary continuationaggregate disability paymentsEason v. City of RiversideKosowski v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.County of Alameda v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
10
Case No. No. 95
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers

This case addresses a dispute between the City of Yonkers and 39 of its permanently disabled, retired firefighters regarding the calculation of their General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) supplement. The core issue is whether certain compensation, specifically holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, constitutes “regular salary or wages” for the purpose of this supplement. The Court concluded that “regular salary or wages” includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties, thus requiring the inclusion of holiday pay and check-in pay. However, it excludes monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties, and therefore, night differential should not be included. The lower court's decision was modified to reflect this interpretation.

General Municipal Law 207-aDisabled Firefighters' BenefitsRegular Salary CalculationCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationHoliday Pay EntitlementCheck-in Pay DisputesNight Differential ExclusionMunicipal Financial BurdenStatutory Remedial PurposePublic Sector Employment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1972

Azzato v. Suffolk County Legislature

This case involves an appeal by employees of the Suffolk County Department of Public Welfare from a judgment dismissing their petition. The petitioners sought to compel respondents to restore their salaries to a grade in effect before the repeal of Social Services Law section 79-a. This repealed law had mandated higher salaries for social service personnel based on graduate training, which the petitioners had received. Following the repeal, their salaries were reduced. Petitioners argued that they are "State employees" under Civil Service Law section 121(2), which prohibits salary reductions for permanent incumbents. The court's judgment affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the respondents. A dissenting opinion argued for the application of Civil Service Law to county employees to prevent such salary reductions and raised concerns about equal protection.

Salary ReductionCivil Service LawSocial Services LawArticle 78 CPLRCounty EmployeesState EmployeesEqual Protection ClausePublic Welfare DepartmentStatutory InterpretationSuffolk County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1992

Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award related to a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitrator's award that mandated salary increases for incumbent typist employees to match a new hire's salary rate. The respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, cross-petitioned to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified; the appellate court vacated the portion of the arbitration award concerning the specific salary increase and remitted the matter to the arbitrator. The court affirmed that the timeliness of a grievance is an arbitrator's domain but found the arbitrator exceeded authority by fashioning a remedy outside the collective bargaining agreement's explicit limitations. The case was remitted for a modified award consistent with the agreement's terms.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSalary DisputeExceeding AuthorityProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewContractual LimitationsGrievance ProcedureTypist SalariesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. FRE 0247129
Regular
May 16, 2008

Joseph Jimenez vs. KINGS COUNTY (PROBATION DEPARTMENT), Innovative Claims Solutions, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine the proper rate for Labor Code section 4850 benefits. The Board held that section 4850 benefits should be paid at the rate of salary lost due to disability, not the applicant's higher salary at the time of injury before a demotion. Therefore, the applicant will receive benefits based on his reduced salary during the period of his temporary disability.

Labor Code section 4850Expedited HearingIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderBicepsNeckDisability BenefitsEarning CapacityDemotionSalary Rate
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,978 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