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

Linger v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Claimant sustained permanent partial disabilities from two 1977 accidents and one 1980 accident, leading to separate awards from different employers and their respective insurance carriers. Initially, the claimant received concurrent benefits exceeding the statutory maximum rate. Upon discovering these concurrent payments, a joint hearing was held. An Administrative Law Judge apportioned the award, which was subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, stating that concurrent awards exceeding the statutory maximum for a permanent partial disability were impermissible. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for a per-accident application of the statutory maximum. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law establishes an overall maximum rate for permanent partial disability regardless of the number of accidents or employments.

Permanent Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory MaximumApportionmentMultiple AccidentsWage LossJudicial PrecedentAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carriers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. Reicon Group, LLC

Claimant, a dock builder, was injured and sought state workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested the Workers’ Compensation Board's jurisdiction, asserting that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) was applicable and a waiver of federal rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 113 was required. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found concurrent jurisdiction between state law and the LHWCA for land-based injuries, rendering a § 113 waiver unnecessary. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that § 113 applies only where a federal scheme preempts state remedies, which is not the case with LHWCA. The court also highlighted that concurrent jurisdiction prevents double recovery.

Concurrent JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActWorkers’ Compensation BoardAdmiralty LawFederal PreemptionWaiver of Federal RightsLand-Based InjuriesDock BuilderDouble RecoveryJones Act
References
12
Case No. ADJ928027
Regular
Feb 03, 2016

DAVID TRINH vs. TZENG LONG USA, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves the suspension of Mike Traw's privilege to appear before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under Labor Code Section 4907. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to suspend due to non-payment of sanctions and failure to respond. While Professional Lien Services, Inc. (PLS) sought extensions, neither Traw nor PLS provided a substantive response. Consequently, Traw's appearance privilege is suspended for ninety days due to his failure to comply with the WCAB's orders. Further action against PLS may occur if ordered sanctions remain unpaid.

Labor Code Section 4907Decision After RemovalNotice of IntentionSuspension of PrivilegeProfessional Lien ServicesMike TrawAppeals Board En BancSanction OrderInterference with Judicial ProcessWCAB
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2004

Odfjell ASA v. Celanese AG

The Memorandum Order by District Judge Rakoff addresses motions related to arbitration subpoenas. The Court granted claimants Celanese and Millennium Petrochemicals' motion to enforce subpoenas against non-parties Stolt-Nielsen entities, requiring them to appear, testify, and produce documents before the arbitration panel. Concurrently, the Court denied Stolt-Nielsen's motion to quash a similar subpoena against Paul E. O’Brien and their subsequent motion to stay the Order. The decision clarifies that Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act grants arbitrators the power to compel non-parties to appear before them for testimony and document production, not limited to a final hearing. The Court emphasized that issues of privilege and confidentiality raised by Stolt-Nielsen should first be determined by the arbitration panel, demonstrating deference to arbitral processes.

Federal Arbitration ActArbitration SubpoenaNon-Party DiscoveryPre-Hearing DiscoveryMotion to QuashMotion to EnforceArbitrator PowersPrivilege IssuesConfidentialityJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. 07-CR-14(S-1)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2014

United States v. Qualls

Thomas Qualls was found guilty by jury verdict on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice in 2008, and later pled guilty to failure to appear. During sentencing, Qualls objected to several enhancements to his offense level, including those for loss amount, sophisticated means, and leadership role, and sought a downward departure due to diminished mental capacity. The Court, presided over by Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied all of Qualls's objections and requests for downward departure or variance. The Court affirmed that the application of the 2013 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual did not violate the ex post facto clause and that a Fatico hearing was unwarranted. Consequently, a sentence within the Guidelines range was imposed, totaling 150 months concurrently for fraud counts and 60 months consecutively for failure to appear.

Criminal FraudWire FraudMail FraudObstruction of JusticeFailure to AppearSentencing GuidelinesEx Post FactoDiminished Mental CapacitySophisticated MeansLeadership Role
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,144 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