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

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

Claim of Reasoner v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

This appellate decision addresses whether the Workers' Compensation Board correctly calculated the claimant's average weekly wage. The employer and carrier argued that due to the claimant's limited employment as an MVRSAB member, the compensation rate should be based on actual earnings, not the 200 multiple outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board determined that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) nor (2) was applicable, thus applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). It also found no evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited participation in the labor market, based on testimony of availability and continued business operation. The court affirmed the Board's calculation.

average weekly wageworkers' compensation lawcompensation rateemployment limitationlabor marketstatutory interpretationappellate reviewMVRSAB member
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Beaty

This workers' compensation case examines whether an employee's average daily wage, as defined by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, includes remuneration for holidays, vacations, and disability. Appellee James Beaty sued Employers Reinsurance Corporation for work-related back injuries. The trial court disregarded the jury's finding of an average daily wage of $51.40 and, as a matter of law, determined it to be $72.71 by including payments for disability, holidays, and vacations. The appellate court affirmed this decision. It held that these forms of remuneration constitute part of an employee's "wages" under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309, § 1(1) and (4), and must be included when calculating the average daily wage.

Workers' CompensationAverage Daily WageHoliday PayVacation PayDisability PayStatutory InterpretationWage CalculationTexas LawRemunerationAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Smith

The case concerns an appeal by an insurance company against a judgment awarded to Smith under the Workmen’s Compensation Law for personal injuries. Smith, an employee of Skelly Oil Company, sought compensation after being injured on April 21, 1932. The central issue revolved around the calculation of Smith's average weekly wage. The trial court submitted the case to the jury under a statutory subdivision for employees who haven't worked substantially a whole year, allowing for the use of other employees' wages. However, the appellate court found that Smith failed to establish that he was ineligible for compensation calculation based on his own earnings. Additionally, the court ruled that submitting the issue of average wages based on multiple witnesses reporting different daily wages was erroneous as it led to an arbitrary calculation. The judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings, suggesting that if the evidence remains consistent, compensation should be considered under a different statutory subdivision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageCompensation LawStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofJury InstructionsReversible ErrorRemandTexas LawOil Field Worker
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1997

Till v. Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc.

The claimant, a private preschool teacher, suffered a compensable injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1), asserting she worked “substantially the whole of the year” despite her 41-week annual employment. The employer contended this was irrational, arguing that predictable seasonal layoffs should be factored into the annual earnings calculation, preventing her from receiving benefits equivalent to a full-time, full-year employee. The court agreed, holding that the formula in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) was inapplicable when seasonal layoffs are a known incident of employment. Therefore, the average weekly wage should be calculated under subdivisions (3) and (4) of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14. The Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageSeasonal EmploymentRemittiturStatutory InterpretationSection 14Appellate DivisionWage CalculationEmployment DurationBoard Decision Reversal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Macias

The case discusses the definition of "day" in the context of the old Worker's Compensation Act, specifically for determining Maria Macias's wage rate as a nurse's aide at Sierra Medical Center. Macias worked shifts spanning two calendar days and argued this should count as two "days" for the 210-day wage calculation. The court, however, clarified that "day" refers to a "work day," not a calendar day, preventing confusion with average "daily" wage calculations. The motion for rehearing was overruled, and the case was remanded for a new trial, emphasizing consistency in the interpretation of "day" within the statute.

Workers' CompensationWage RateDefinition of DayWork DayCalendar DayStatutory InterpretationTexas LawMotion for RehearingRemandJury Finding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of House v. International Talc Co.

Arthur House suffered a compensable occupational disease in 1973, resulting in permanent total disability and received workers' compensation benefits based on his 1973 average weekly wage. He died in 1995 from lung disease. His widow, the claimant, filed for death benefits, contending the benefits should be calculated based on the average weekly wage of a comparable employee for the year preceding his death (March 17, 1994, to March 17, 1995). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board, however, determined that death benefits should be calculated based on House's average weekly wage from the date of his original injury, April 5, 1973. This Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 2, 14, and 38 to establish that the date of the original injury or accident is the basis for computing both disability and death benefits, not the date of death.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationDate of DisablementAppellate DivisionTalcosisClaimant's Widow
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Divers World Enterprises, Inc.

The case concerns the Workers' Compensation Board's calculation of death benefits for a claimant whose husband (decedent) drowned during work as a diver. The decedent, a State Trooper, was concurrently employed by Divers World Enterprises, Inc., a company he co-owned, and did not draw a salary from it, leaving funds in the corporate account. The Board determined his average weekly wage based on the daily rate for divers, using Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), resulting in a weekly sum of $803.65. Divers World appealed, arguing against this calculation, but the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it consistent with statutory directives and supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasized that earned wages do not always equate to paid wages when services benefit a corporate entity.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsAverage Weekly WageConcurrent EmploymentStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation BoardWage CalculationCorporate EarningsDecedentDrowning Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Barrett

In this worker’s compensation case, the defendant, Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, appealed a judgment awarding plaintiff Sam Henry Barrett compensation for total and permanent disability. The appeal questioned jury findings on Barrett’s average daily wage and whether a prior injury contributed to his current disability. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the average daily wage calculation, even for hourly paid employees. It also noted the lack of evidence on the percentage of contribution from a prior injury, which was necessary for reducing recovery under Article 8306, Section 12c.

Worker's CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityAverage Daily WagePrior InjuryJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas LawSufficiency of EvidenceHourly Wage CalculationInsurance Claim
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,866 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