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
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Warnock

The claimant was terminated after an altercation with a co-worker, but eyewitnesses testified that no threats or physical contact occurred, and the co-worker was the one who became angry. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, finding that the actions did not constitute misconduct. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the Board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and that displaying bad judgment does not automatically disqualify a claimant from benefits.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductSubstantial evidenceAltercationCo-worker disputeAppellate reviewAppeal Board decisionEmployee terminationBad judgmentNo physical contact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Public Oversight Board

This case addresses the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (2-a) concerning death benefits for a surviving spouse and children upon the spouse’s remarriage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, a surviving spouse, was entitled to a lump-sum payment, and her two children's benefits should increase to 25% each immediately upon her remarriage. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the children's increased benefits should be delayed for two years, arguing for a pervasive 66% wage share maximum. The court rejected this argument, affirming the Board's decision, clarifying that the remarriage lump-sum payment is not an advance but a separate entitlement, and thus, the children's benefits increase immediately.

death benefitssurviving spouseremarriage benefitschildren's compensationWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationlump-sum paymentwage share maximumWorkers' Compensation Board decisionappellate affirmance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1971

Claim of Wippert v. Peele Bros.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which ruled that a claimant widow was entitled to supplemental benefits without deducting social security benefits received from her own earnings. The employer and insurance carrier appealed this decision. The central issue was whether social security benefits, regardless of their source, should be offset against supplemental benefits under subdivision 9 of section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court found that the statute's language explicitly requires such an offset, irrespective of the social security benefits' originating source. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's determination, remitting the matter for recalculation of the supplemental benefit.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security OffsetSupplemental AllowancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBenefit ReductionLegislative HistoryClaimant WidowPublic PolicyBenefit Calculation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2005

Weinstein v. Somers Fire District

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter and self-employed real estate agent, sustained a back injury in July 2001 while performing duties. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found he suffered a permanent partial disability and a 50% loss of earning capacity under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, awarding benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer and its carrier appealed the decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence including a neurosurgeon's report indicating chronic low back pain, reduced ability to work, and a moderate permanent disability. The report noted that the claimant's duties as a real estate agent were limited, and his average work hours had significantly decreased.

Volunteer firefighterloss of earning capacitypermanent partial disabilityback injuryreal estate agentneurosurgeon reportsubstantial evidenceWorkers' Compensation Boardappealbenefit law
References
4
Case No. ADJ9171432
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

Kenneth Evanoff vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The applicant, previously awarded 96% permanent disability for a 2007 injury, suffered a subsequent injury in 2012 resulting in prostate cancer. The initial award used the Combined Values Chart to calculate the combined disability at 98%, entitling him to benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The applicant argues the trial judge erred by using the Combined Values Chart and seeks to simply add the disability percentages, leading to a 100% combined disability. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that in the absence of overlapping disabilities, the disabilities should be added, entitling the applicant to a 100% permanent disability rating and remanding for a new award.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityCombined Values ChartLabor Code section 4664(c)(1)(G)Whole Person ImpairmentWPIDate of InjuryDate of Knowledge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1992

Fedorczak v. Dolce

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that annulled determinations by the City of White Plains Commissioner of Public Safety regarding firefighter benefits. The petitioners, firefighters injured in the line of duty, were initially denied benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a, with their time lost allocated to sick leave. The Supreme Court found that prior Workers' Compensation Board awards had already established that the injuries occurred in the performance of their duties, thus entitling them to benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, drawing parallels between General Municipal Law § 207-a and § 207-c, and deeming the respondents' initial determinations arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the judgment directed the City of White Plains to provide the petitioners with the appropriate benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a.

FirefightersGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aWorkers' Compensation BoardSick LeaveInjury in Line of DutyCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionWestchester CountyMunicipal EmployeesPublic Safety
References
5
Case No. WCB No. 6901 2052
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sunukjian v. Price Chopper

Claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a shoulder injury in 2002, with a schedule loss of use award in 2004. In 2010, the schedule loss of use award was rescinded, and the claimant was classified with a permanent partial disability. The employer and its carrier sought credit for prior schedule loss of use payments. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied the credit but, upon reconsideration, ruled in favor of the employer. The claimant appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, holding that the employer was entitled to the credit and had not waived this right.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityEmployer ReimbursementCreditWaiverStipulationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCarpal Tunnel Syndrome
References
6
Case No. ADJ3674012 (ANA 0386342)
Regular
Feb 17, 2015

Richard Hoover vs. Trading Places International, Clarendon Insurance Company, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

Here is a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record regarding the applicant's eligibility for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits. The core issue is whether the applicant had a "labor disabling" pre-existing condition before his October 2, 2002 industrial injury, a requirement for SIBTF benefits. The Board found the previous administrative law judge erred by finding no pre-existing disability without sufficient exploration of the applicant's residual pain symptoms from prior back surgeries. Jurisdiction is reserved to determine if these symptoms constituted a ratable, labor-disabling permanent disability entitling the applicant to SIBTF benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpre-existing disabilitylabor disablingapportionmentSB 899retroactive prophylactic work restrictioncongenial work settingresidual pain symptomsmedical evaluator
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 7,875 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