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. ADJ6712588
Regular
Aug 12, 2010

MARIA NAVARRO vs. STAFF CHEX, AIG INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for Applicant Maria Navarro, rescinding a prior award. The Board found a potential due process violation because the Applicant claimed she was never served with the Disability Evaluation Unit's (DEU) rating. As the DEU rating was not found in the official record of proceedings, the Board returned the case for further proceedings, ordering the DEU rating be properly added to the record and served on all parties. This ensures the Applicant has an opportunity to challenge the rating and exercise her due process rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDue ProcessNoticeCross-examinationDisability Evaluation UnitDEUProof of Service
References
5
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. ADJ3057272 (RDG 0125821)
Regular
Dec 03, 2010

FIDEL NAZARENO vs. OLD DURHAM WOOD COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a permanent disability award, arguing the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) impairment rating was inconsistent with AMA Guides. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter for further development of the record. Issues include the DEU rater improperly separating AME's combined whole person impairment and the AME needing to clarify his reasoning on grip loss and potential overlap with other impairments. The AME will also re-evaluate impairment without referencing prior DEU ratings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEpermanent disabilityAMA GuidesDEU raterrating instructionswhole person impairmentFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Perrin v. Builders Resource, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the reimbursement rate for home health aide services provided to a claimant by their sister. Initially, the carrier denied payment but was later directed to pay. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the reimbursement rate at $12 per hour for services starting in 2011, which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed, solely challenging this rate. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant was not an aggrieved party concerning the reimbursement rate, as the dispute was between the care provider (the sister) and the carrier. The court affirmed that the claimant received the care sought and could not raise issues on behalf of the care provider.

Workers' CompensationHome Health Aide ServicesReimbursement RateAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCare ProviderWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ProcedureNew York LawCarrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony L. Jordan Health Corp. v. Axelrod

The Anthony L. Jordan Health Center, a not-for-profit corporation, challenged the New York State Department of Health's recalculation of its Medicaid reimbursement rates for the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 periods. Following an appeal, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement. However, the Department, while recalculating the rates in accordance with the stipulation, unilaterally changed the group composition, resulting in a significant negative adjustment and recoupment from Jordan. The court determined that this regrouping constituted an 'error of judgment,' not a permissible correction for mathematical error or an audit finding. Consequently, the court found that the Department did not have the right to retroactively adjust the rates based on this discretionary change. The petition was granted.

Medicaid ReimbursementRate RecalculationAdministrative ReviewStipulation AgreementError of JudgmentGroup CompositionRetroactive AdjustmentHealth Care LawJudicial ReviewDepartment of Health
References
5
Case No. ADJ6674613
Regular
Mar 16, 2011

Donald Kusar vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address issues with the applicant's permanent disability rating after an admitted left elbow injury. The WCJ had found no permanent disability but vacated submission in companion cases involving other injuries for clarification from the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME). The applicant argued the WCJ erred by striking ratings and vacating submission in consolidated cases and that the DEU rater improperly substituted her own judgment for the AME's findings. The Board rescinded the Findings and Award, returning the matter to the trial level to rate all three consolidated cases together, and to reconsider the permanent disability rating in light of the *Blackledge* decision regarding the rater's role.

Agreed Medical ExaminerAppeals BoardConsolidated casesDEU raterDisability evaluationEn banc decisionFindings and AwardImpairment ratingMedical evidencePermanent disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Matter of Suit-Kote Corporation v. Rivera

Petitioner, a highway construction contractor, challenged the prevailing wage rates set by the respondent for operating engineers, laborers, and teamsters for public work projects. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to ensure that the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) used to determine these rates covered at least 30% of the workers, as required by Labor Law § 220. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied petitioner's request for disclosure. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court holding that the burden of proving that less than 30% of workers were covered rests with the employer. The appellate court also found the respondent's method for determining wage rates was not arbitrary or capricious and that the request for disclosure was overly broad, thus upholding the denial.

Prevailing WagePublic Work ProjectsCollective Bargaining AgreementsLabor Law ComplianceBurden of ProofDisclosureCPLR Article 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewWage Rate DeterminationHighway Construction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

Hospital Service Plan v. Warehouse Production & Sales Employees Union

The appellants, who are successors in interest to the original defendants, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The order denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to execute a 'satisfaction piece' after the appellants paid the judgment with interest calculated at the New York rate. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that according to the principles of full faith and credit, the judgment from New Jersey required interest to be paid at the 8% New Jersey rate, not the 6% New York rate. Additionally, the appellants were deemed responsible for the Sheriff's levy costs because they failed to properly serve the Sheriff with a stay of execution, thereby necessitating the levy.

Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditInterest RatesSheriff's LevySatisfaction PieceNew Jersey JudgmentNew York LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCourt Costs
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,670 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