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

Formal Opinion No.

This opinion from the Chairman of the New York Workers' Compensation Board addresses the priority of income execution and income deduction orders, established by the 1985 Support Enforcement Act (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242), against other statutory deductions from workers' compensation awards. Historically, WCL § 33 provided broad exemptions for workers' compensation benefits. However, WCL §§ 206(2) and 25(4)(a) allow for reimbursement of disability insurers and employers for advance payments, respectively, and WCL § 24 establishes liens for attorneys' fees, traditionally enjoying highest priority. The 1985 Act amended WCL § 33 to make benefits subject to support enforcement and also stipulated that income executions and deduction orders take priority over other assignments, levies, or processes. The Board concluded that claims for attorneys' fees and reimbursements by disability insurance carriers and employers are to be deducted first from the workers' compensation award. The support enforcement remedies under CPLR §§ 5241 and 5242 then apply to the balance of the workers' compensation benefits paid to the employee. This approach ensures prompt payment to injured workers and prevents double payment issues.

Workers' CompensationSupport Enforcement ActIncome ExecutionIncome DeductionLien PriorityStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementAttorneys' Fees PriorityCPLR 5241
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeluck v. Board of Education

The case involves a motion by the Attorney-General to dismiss a petition filed by certain teachers. The teachers sought to enjoin the Superintendent of Schools from implementing payroll deductions mandated by Civil Service Law section 210, also known as the Taylor Law, for their alleged participation in a strike. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional, infringing upon rights to free association, speech, and equal protection, and that its payroll deduction provisions constituted a bill of attainder and violated due process. The court, citing precedents, rejected the arguments regarding free association, speech, and equal protection. It also found the due process procedures for payroll deductions sufficient, concluding the law was not a bill of attainder. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employee StrikesPayroll DeductionsDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionConstitutionality of StatuteMotion to Dismiss
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.D.E. Air Conditioning, Inc. v. New York Health & Hospitals Corp.

An independent contractor sued the City of New York for $4,000 deducted from contract payments. The deduction resulted from the plaintiff's failure to meet a contractual requirement to provide 100 person-days for minority trainees on a city project. The plaintiff argued that the breach was due to the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union's refusal to supply minority workers, making performance impossible. However, the court found that the contract terms allowed for such deductions regardless of the reason for non-compliance, rejecting arguments of impossibility or inequity in the penalty. Citing precedent and affirmative action policies, the court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Contract disputeIndependent contractorMinority training programAffirmative actionSummary judgmentImpossibility of performanceBreach of contractDeduction from paymentExecutive ordersPublic contracting
References
5
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. FRE 0233278
Regular
Dec 31, 2007

DELIA G. WILSON vs. BEEF PACKERS, INC, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address penalties and attorney's fees awarded by the WCJ. While affirming the WCJ's decision that the defendant could not deduct permanent disability advances made before April 8, 2006, the Board reversed the penalties and attorney's fees. The Board found that ambiguities in the Compromise and Release agreement regarding deductions created reasonable doubt, thus precluding penalties for delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDelia G. WilsonBeef PackersInc.Zurich InsuranceGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePermanent Disability Advances
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Man-Of-Jerusalem v. Hill

The plaintiff, a computer programmer at the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), filed a pro se action alleging religious discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. He claimed HRA denied him paid leave for religious holidays and family emergencies, deducted previously granted paid leave, and that co-workers created a hostile environment. The court dismissed the plaintiff's Title VII claims, ruling that allowing unpaid leave for religious observance is a reasonable accommodation, there was no discriminatory retaliation in leave deductions, and the alleged hostile environment stemmed from personality conflicts, not religious discrimination. Additionally, claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Sections 1981, 1985, and the Rehabilitation Act, were dismissed for lack of factual support or inapplicability.

Religious discriminationEmployment discriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Rehabilitation Act of 1973First Amendment rightsRetaliation claimsHostile work environmentMotion to dismissPro se litigantFederal statutes
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallesandro v. Dallesandro

This opinion addresses a motion by Nationwide Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for the respondent's employer, to vacate a wage deduction order issued on June 26, 1981. The original order directed Nationwide to withhold $95 per week from the respondent's workers' compensation benefits for the support of his former wife and two children, due to the respondent's failure to pay. Nationwide contended that it was not explicitly authorized by Personal Property Law § 49-b and that workers' compensation benefits were statutorily exempt from support claims. The court rejected both arguments, holding that carriers acting as employer agents are bound by the law and that workers' compensation exemptions do not apply to support claims, citing legislative intent evidenced by the repeal of a former exemption. Consequently, the motion to vacate was denied, and the carrier was directed to comply with the original order.

Wage Deduction OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChild SupportAlimonyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Property LawWorkers' Compensation LawCarrier LiabilitySupport EnforcementLegislative Intent
References
7
Case No. ADJ7112948
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

LYLE BYNUM vs. VALLEJO TRANSIT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the defendant's attorney and insurance company for alleged bad faith actions. These actions included filing a petition for reconsideration with inaccurate and unsupported references to evidence, misrepresenting medical opinions, and asserting meritless contentions. The WCAB is considering sanctions of up to $2,000 and reasonable expenses due to these alleged violations of labor code and board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Findings and AwardWCJBus DriverBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,501 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