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

Lyublinsky v. Barnhart

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
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

In Re Texas EZPawn Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

This General Order addresses Defendant Texas EZPawn, L.P.'s motion for partial summary judgment concerning the calculation of damages in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases. Plaintiffs, former assistant store managers, allege they were improperly classified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation. EZPawn argued for the application of the fluctuating workweek method (29 C.F.R. § 778.114) for damage calculation, citing *Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Company*. Plaintiffs countered that EZPawn waived this argument, the method is inapplicable, and fact issues remain. The Court denies EZPawn's motion, concluding that the fluctuating workweek method is inappropriate for misclassification cases as it is inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the FLSA, particularly the time and one-half compensation requirement for overtime, and creates adverse incentives for employers. The Court also declines to follow the Fifth Circuit precedent in *Blackmon*, deeming its reasoning flawed.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationEmployee MisclassificationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentDamages CalculationFederal Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeStatutory InterpretationCircuit Precedent
References
43
Case No. 03A01-9701-GS-00030
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1997

Hall v. Hall

The case involves an appeal by Peggy Elaine Jackson Hall (mother) against Mark Richard Hall (father) regarding a child support order. Initially, child support was set at $600/month in 1991, increased to $700/month two years later, and then to $1200/month in October 1996, effective June 1, 1996. The mother appealed, contending the $1200 increase was insufficient under Tennessee's child support guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the calculation of the father's net income, specifically addressing the non-inclusion of depreciation as a deductible expense, which the trial judge had overlooked. The court found that depreciation should not be deducted and increased the child support award to $1300/month, making the excess retroactive to January 1, 1995.

Child SupportFamily LawMarital DissolutionIncome CalculationDepreciationCapital GainsChild Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRetroactive SupportJudicial Discretion
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

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
Mar 20, 2000

Claim of Hamm v. USF Red Star

A truck driver, referred to as 'claimant', was injured while crossing a street to get a meal before starting a new assignment. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the injury compensable, categorizing the claimant as an 'outside employee' entitled to expanded coverage. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing the accident occurred during a deviation from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the activity was reasonable and within the course of employment. The court also dismissed an appeal concerning the calculation of benefits due to abandonment by the claimant.

Traveling EmployeePortal-to-Portal CoverageCourse of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentCompensable InjuryAccidentTruck DriverMeal BreakOff-Duty InjuryBoard Resolution
References
7
Case No. 2015-07-0467
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2016

Parrish, Robert v. Digit Dirt Worx

This case involves an expedited hearing initiated by employee Robert Parrish, who sought additional temporary disability benefits, arguing that his weekly compensation rate was incorrectly calculated by his employer, Digit Dirt Worx. Mr. Parrish claimed he worked only twenty weeks, not the twenty-three weeks calculated by Digit Dirt Worx. The employer, Digit Dirt Worx, argued the request for an expedited hearing was untimely and that their compensation rate calculation was correct, utilizing a period of twenty-three weeks and five days, which resulted in a higher rate for Mr. Parrish than his own calculations. The Court addressed the timeliness issue, excusing the ten-day late filing due to Mr. Parrish's clear intent to prosecute the claim. However, on the merits, the Court denied Mr. Parrish's claim, finding insufficient evidence to support his argument for a different compensation rate and concluding that Digit's calculation was consistent with Tennessee law.

Expedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsWeekly Compensation RateWage CalculationTimeliness of FilingDispute Certification NoticeAverage Weekly WageFortuitous CircumstanceTruck Driver EmploymentFile Review Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery v. Montgomery

Beatrice Harmon Montgomery and Terry Lane Montgomery, an unmarried couple, operated several businesses together for 27 years. Beatrice sued for dissolution of an implied business partnership, with their son Brian Montgomery intervening as a partner in some ventures. The Trial Court's finding of an equal partnership between Beatrice and Terry, and Brian's partnership in certain assets, was largely affirmed on appeal. The appellate court modified the ownership interest in specific land and vacated the method for calculating depreciation credits, remanding for recalculation. It also reversed a credit related to Terry's life insurance policy but upheld a $10,000 statutory damage award to Beatrice for a single wiretapping violation. The case was ultimately reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed in part as modified, and remanded for further proceedings.

Partnership dissolutionImplied partnershipBusiness asset divisionJoint propertyCredibility findingsWiretappingStatutory damagesDepreciation calculationMisappropriation of fundsEqual partners
References
14
Case No. ADJ7315205
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

JOSE H. HERNANDEZ vs. COVE BUILDERS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the calculation of permanent disability (PD) payments for an applicant with 100% PD. The defendant appealed an order that adjusted PD payments based on a calculation by T. Blair McGowan, arguing that McGowan's calculations incorrectly applied a 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) and improperly included cost of living adjustments (COLA) prior to the date of injury. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the 15% increase inapplicable to 100% PD cases. However, due to the unsettled legal status of COLA calculations following *Duncan v. WCAB*, the Board rescinded the prior order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct PD rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationClerical ErrorPermanent Disability RateLabor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Labor Code Section 4659(c)Cost of Living AdjustmentDate of Injury100% Permanent DisabilityPermanent Partial Disability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,243 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