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
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Paez v. Lackman Culinary Services

Claimant, an immigrant, injured his lower back while working as a food service worker in 2010. His workers' compensation claim was established, leading to surgery in 2012 for a herniated disc. Despite surgery, he continued to experience pain and was unable to return to his job. A WCLJ determined he had a permanent partial disability and an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board failed to consider total industrial disability, an issue he had raised before the WCLJ. The appellate court found that the Board did err by not addressing the total industrial disability claim and remitted the matter for further proceedings, as total industrial disability can have a more favorable outcome than loss of wage-earning capacity.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityTotal Industrial DisabilityLumbar DiscectomyLaminectomyMedical ExaminationRemittalAppellate ReviewBack InjuryFood Service Worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jones v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Division, GMC

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a self-insured employer’s entitlement to credit for holiday wages paid to disabled employees. Claimants Hanks and Jones were injured during employment, resulting in lost time, including holidays. The employer paid them compensation for lost time but also provided full wages for holidays as per collective bargaining agreements, subsequently seeking reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4)(a). The Board denied these reimbursement requests, stating that holiday pay was a contractual right and not intended to be in lieu of compensation. The appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions, ruling that denying reimbursement would lead to claimants receiving both full wages and compensation for the holidays, creating an imbalance. Therefore, the employer is entitled to reimbursement, and the matters are remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationHoliday PayReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementDisabled EmployeesLost WagesSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Calise v. Hillside Carting, Inc.

Claimant, classified with a permanent partial disability after a 1994 injury, received reduced earnings benefits. In 2002, the State Insurance Fund (SIF) sought to terminate these benefits, arguing claimant's post-injury corporate profits should be included in his wage earning capacity. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially reduced the award, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining claimant's average weekly wage based on W-2s and tax returns, separating profits from earnings. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that business profits are not considered earnings for Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) purposes and upholding the Board's factual determination as supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageReduced Earnings BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityCorporate ProfitsWage Earning CapacityTax ReturnsWorkers’ Compensation Law § 15(5-a)Appellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1999

Claim of Fisher v. Combined Life Insurance

In November 1995, the claimant suffered work-related injuries to his neck, back, and knee. He received workers' compensation benefits for total disability until January 5, 1996. Subsequently, the employer challenged his entitlement to partial disability benefits, asserting that the claimant had no reduced earnings after that date. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately concluded that the claimant's wage earning capacity in 1996 surpassed his average weekly wage, thereby denying benefits post-January 5, 1996. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the factual determination that the claimant's 1996 income from self-employment constituted earnings rather than profits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a).

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityReduced EarningsWage Earning CapacitySelf-Employment IncomeProfits vs. EarningsBoard FindingsFactual IssuesCredibilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barnard v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.

The claimant sustained work-related injuries to both hands in 2004 and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the average weekly wage at $447.10 using a 260-multiple. The employer appealed, arguing for a lower wage based on actual earnings. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined a miscalculation occurred and established the average weekly wage at $343.92, applying a 200-multiple under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) because the claimant did not work substantially the whole year. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding the 200-multiple accurately reflected the claimant's earning capacity, as she was a full-time employee who did not voluntarily limit her availability.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageWage CalculationSection 14MultiplierEarning CapacityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionOccupational DiseaseNew York
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,662 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