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

Insurance Co. of State of the Pennsylvania v. Moore

This appeal addresses whether a worker's compensation carrier is entitled to a proportionate reduction in supplemental income benefits (SIBs) equal to the percentage of reduction for impairment income benefits (IIBs) for a prior compensable injury under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant, Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, sought an 11/17ths reduction in Appellee John H. Moore's SIBs, matching the reduction applied to his IIBs for a previous back injury. A hearing officer granted the IIB reduction but denied the SIB reduction. The trial court upheld this decision. The appellate court reversed, holding that Texas Labor Code § 408.084 is unambiguous and mandates that both IIBs and SIBs be reduced by the same proportion when contribution is warranted for a prior injury. Consequently, Appellant is entitled to an 11/17ths reduction of Appellee’s supplemental income benefits.

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Impairment Income Benefits (IIBs)Prior Compensable InjuryProportionate ReductionStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommission Appeals Panel
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1982

In re the Claim of Peat

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a reduction in her unemployment benefits. The reduction was made under Labor Law § 600(7) due to her receipt of Social Security benefits. The court, citing precedents Matter of Cullen and Rivera v Patino, ruled that Social Security benefits derived from a non-base period employer should not offset unemployment benefits from a different base period employer. As the claimant's Social Security benefits vested from prior employment, the board's decision to reduce her unemployment rate was reversed. The case was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment BenefitsSocial Security OffsetLabor Law 600(7)Benefit Rate ReductionPrior EmploymentBase Period EmployerAdministrative AppealRemittitur
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff was fired from Manhattan Woods Golf Club after taking a day off for his dying mother's emergency brain surgery. He sued for FMLA violation and breach of contract. A jury awarded him damages for both claims. Defendants subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that he qualified for FMLA leave. The court granted the defendants' motion regarding the FMLA claim (Count I), finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was 'needed to care for' his mother as per FMLA regulations, and dismissed the claim. The motion for reduction of FMLA damages became moot. However, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim (Count II), upholding the jury's finding that the employer lacked 'reasonable cause' to terminate the plaintiff's employment.

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schoonmaker v. Capital Region Board of Cooperative Educational Services

The petitioner, a senior keyboard specialist for BOCES, challenged the reduction of her work hours from full-time to 75% due to reduced workload. She argued this violated Civil Service Law § 80, asserting that employees with less seniority maintained full hours. The Supreme Court dismissed her petition, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that a reduction in work hours, without a corresponding reduction in rank or salary grade or conversion to a part-time position as defined by local rules, does not constitute an "abolition or reduction in rank or salary grade" under Civil Service Law § 80. The court emphasized a strict interpretation of the statute's plain meaning and noted that legislative efforts to include hour reductions in the statute were previously vetoed, indicating legislative intent.

Civil Service LawEmployment HoursSeniority RightsStatutory InterpretationPublic Sector EmploymentReduction in ForceCPLR Article 78Albany CountyAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Handschu v. Special Services Division

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for attorneys' fees filed by Class Counsel in a civil rights action, Handschu v. Police Dept. of the City of New York. The plaintiff class was previously deemed the prevailing party on a significant issue, entitling them to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), payable by the City of New York. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Haight, reviewed Class Counsel's fee application, finding an hourly rate of $400 for each of the five experienced attorneys to be reasonable. However, the Court applied several reductions: a 30% reduction for the degree of success achieved, a 10% reduction for failure to maintain fully compliant contemporaneous time records, and a 10% reduction for overstaffing and duplication of effort. Fees related to a sanction imposed on Corporation Counsel for late disclosure were exempt from these reductions. The City of New York was directed to pay the adjusted fee awards and expenses by August 31, 2010.

Attorneys' Fees MotionCivil Rights ActionPrevailing Party DoctrineFee ReductionBilling JudgmentContemporaneous Time RecordsOverstaffingSanctions for MisconductPolice SurveillanceEquitable Power
References
19
Case No. ADJ4011315 (ANA 0396860)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

Jong H. Choi vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, Administered By GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the 6% permanent disability award but rescinding a 15% reduction in indemnity. The reduction was improperly applied because the employer failed to offer modified/alternative work within the statutory 60-day window after the applicant reached permanent and stationary status. The Board upheld the WCJ's reliance on the treating physician's report over the QME's for determining the disability level. The employer's offer of work was untimely, thus disqualifying them from the statutory reduction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical ExaminerPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code Section 4658(d)(3)(A)Modified WorkAlternative WorkSubstantial Medical EvidenceFindings and AwardReconsideration
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Winber v. Gottlieb Adorn Printing Co.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workmen's Compensation Board denying compensation benefits. The claimant, a compositor, sustained a lower back injury in November 1958. The core issue was whether a subsequent reduction in earnings in January 1960 was due to the disability or the employer’s economic condition. The employer argued that poor business conditions and the loss of a major contract necessitated the pay reduction. The claimant countered that he was the only employee whose pay was reduced and that two office workers received increases. The board found that the reduction in earnings was due to economic conditions, not the disability. The court affirmed the board's determination, stating it was based on substantial evidence and not reviewable.

workers' compensationreduced earningseconomic conditionsdisabilitycausationsubstantial evidenceappealcompositorlower back injuryemployer responsibility
References
3
Case No. ADJ7186596
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

ANDREW MARTINEZ vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) award. The defendant argued for a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments based on an offer of regular work, contending it should apply retroactively to all unpaid benefits. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the reduction only applies to payments becoming due *after* the work offer was made. The Board affirmed the judge's finding that the defendant had a duty to advance permanent disability payments earlier, due to indications of potential permanent disability from medical reports prior to the offer. Therefore, the 15% reduction under Labor Code § 4658(d) was correctly limited to post-offer payments.

Labor Code § 4658(d)Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityOffer of Regular WorkPermanent and Stationary DateLabor Code § 4650(b)Labor Code § 4061(a)Advance PaymentsMedical Treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

French v. Blum

This case concerns an appeal regarding the reduction of a public assistance grant. The petitioner, a recipient of home relief, had her monthly grant reduced after receiving state and federal tax refunds. She challenged the local agency's decision to reduce her grant, arguing that she had already expended the refunds. Special Term initially annulled the determination, treating the reduction as an attempted recoupment of overpayments. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that tax refunds are considered available resources that recipients must utilize to reduce their need for public assistance, regardless of whether they have been subsequently spent. The court emphasized that timely notice of reduction was given while the funds were still available.

Public AssistanceHome ReliefSocial Services LawTax RefundsResource UtilizationRecoupmentCPLR Article 78Available ResourcesNotice of IntentAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra L. v. John L.

The petitioner filed a violation of support petition against the respondent for failing to comply with a court order requiring him to pay $200 weekly support for herself and three children. The respondent's defense was that he was out of work due to a union strike, preventing him from meeting his obligation. The court determined that participation in a legal strike does not constitute a voluntary reduction of income and that the respondent had shown good cause for the reduction. Furthermore, the court found that the respondent demonstrated good cause for failing to prospectively seek a total reduction of his support obligation in Richmond County, given his prior actions in Orange County. Consequently, the court canceled the respondent's support obligation for the strike period from January 9 to April 9, 1984.

Child Support ArrearsLegal StrikeVoluntary Income ReductionNational Labor Relations ActFamily Court ActSupport ObligationGood Cause DefenseRetroactive Arrears CancellationPayroll Deduction OrderInter-County Jurisdiction
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 486 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