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

Webb v. TAD Temporaries

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed May 21, 1998, found no concurrent employment for calculating average weekly wage. The second decision, filed June 4, 1999, affirmed a 10% schedule loss of use of the left leg, made tentative rates permanent, and imposed an assessment on claimant's attorney. The Court affirmed the finding of no concurrent employment, determining the claimant did not work for both employers simultaneously. It also affirmed the Board's jurisdiction to set a permanent rate despite a pending appeal on the concurrent employment issue. However, the Court reversed the assessment against claimant's attorney due to a lack of stated justification.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageSchedule Loss of UseJurisdictionDue ProcessAttorney AssessmentAppealsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability
References
4
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 Hernandez v. Taco Bell, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that allowed an employer's carrier reimbursement for concurrent employment benefits. The carrier had failed to file the mandatory form C-251.3, although the Fund had actual notice of the concurrent employment issue and participated in related stipulations. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board had affirmed reimbursement, citing the Fund's consent and actual notice. However, this appellate court reversed the decision and remitted the case, ruling that the Board had not adequately explained its departure from established precedent which typically required strict adherence to filing procedures for reimbursement claims, even when actual notice existed. The court emphasized the Board's need to justify such deviations from its own prior rulings.

Special Disability FundReimbursementConcurrent EmploymentWaiver DefenseForm C-251.3Board PrecedentAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationRemittalSchedule Loss of Use
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tijani

After beginning unemployment insurance benefits, the claimant's benefits were reduced due to concurrent receipt of workers' compensation benefits. An Administrative Law Judge sustained this reduction. The claimant's subsequent appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was dismissed as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the claimant's concession that the benefit reduction was proper and that he had no obvious reason to appeal the initial ALJ decision. The court also stated that any claims regarding later adjustments to unemployment benefits due to workers' compensation suspension were beyond the current record's scope and must be pursued before the agency.

Unemployment InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit AdjustmentUntimely AppealAdministrative DecisionsJudicial ReviewConcession of FactAppellate ProcedureScope of ReviewLabor Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ6779280, ADJ6783287
Regular
Feb 09, 2011

DANA COX vs. FIRST TRANSIT, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant with two distinct industrial injuries to different body parts, leading to concurrent temporary disability. The defendant argued the 104-week limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) should run concurrently for both injuries. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding the WCJ did not properly apply the statute. The Board remanded the case for a new decision, clarifying that for overlapping periods of temporary disability from multiple injuries, the 104-week limitation runs concurrently.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)petition for reconsiderationFindings and Awardparatransit driver104 compensable weeksaggregate disability paymentssuccessive injuriesconcurrent temporary disabilityoverlapping body partsLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)
References
2
Case No. MON 0333042 MON 0333043
Regular
May 01, 2008

JOSE LUIS CASTANEDA vs. SAMY'S CAMERA, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Jose Luis Castaneda's claim for temporary disability benefits following two work-related injuries from Samy's Camera, Inc. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award limiting temporary disability to two years from commencement, finding that concurrent injuries result in a concurrent application of the two-year cap under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). This decision aligns with the appellate court's ruling in *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which held that the 104-week/2-year limitation runs concurrently when independent injuries cause simultaneous temporary disability.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnitypetition for reconsiderationtwo-year capFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.aggregate disability paymentsconcurrent periodsspecific injurycumulative injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1992

Boykins v. Syracuse Developmental Center

The claimant suffered two separate work-related injuries: a knee injury in 1981 while employed by Kelsey-Hayes Company, resulting in permanent partial disability, and a herniated disc in 1987 while working for Syracuse Developmental Center, leading to total permanent disability. Prior to the second injury, her initial compensation award was reduced due to lower wages at Syracuse. The Workers’ Compensation Board apportioned a new award of $244.83, with contributions from both employers. Syracuse appealed, challenging the concurrent awards. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that concurrent awards for distinct injuries in different employments are permissible as long as the total award does not exceed the statutory maximum.

permanent partial disabilitytotal permanent disabilityconcurrent awardsdifferent employmentsstatutory maximumwage lossapportionment of awardknee injuryherniated discWorkers' Compensation Board appeal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 23,027 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