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. 2025-60-0029
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

Hubbard, Talin v. Discount Tire, LLC

Mr. Talin Hubbard, a tire technician, sustained a chest injury on February 28, 2023, while working for Discount Tire, LLC. A compensation hearing was held on November 12, 2025, to resolve disputes regarding his permanent disability benefits. The Court adopted Dr. Karen Oldham's 1% whole person impairment rating for chronic pain syndrome, finding Discount Tire did not provide clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness given to the Medical Impairment Rating Registry physician's opinion. Furthermore, Mr. Hubbard was deemed entitled to increased benefits, receiving an award of $2,521.00, due to not returning to work for any employer. The Court also ordered Discount Tire to provide open medical benefits for both costochondritis and chronic pain syndrome, recognizing their work-related causation.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Disability BenefitsImpairment RatingChronic Pain SyndromeCostochondritisMedical Impairment Rating RegistryPreponderance of EvidenceClear and Convincing EvidenceReturn to WorkMedical Benefits
References
3
Case No. 158 AD3d 1195
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2018

Village of Herkimer v. County of Herkimer

The Village of Herkimer appealed an order from Supreme Court, Oneida County, concerning the discount rate applied to a prior damages award against it in a dispute with the County of Herkimer regarding the Herkimer County Self-Insurance Plan. This action followed a Court of Appeals remittal to establish an appropriate discount rate, after a jury had previously awarded damages to the County. The Supreme Court conducted a nonjury trial and set the discount rate, ordering a refund to the Village. On appeal, the Fourth Department reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the trial court erred by not empaneling a jury to determine the discount rate, as the plaintiff had a constitutional and statutory right to a jury trial on all issues, including the discount rate in this breach of contract action. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a jury trial.

Jury trial rightDiscount rate calculationDamages awardBreach of contractWorkers' Compensation LawSelf-insurance planAppellate procedureRemittal orderCPLR Article 4101Statutory interpretation
References
6
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. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2003

Tassone v. Mid-Valley Oil Co.

A 22-year-old plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries after falling from the roof of the defendant's Xtra Mart store while installing a satellite system. A prior decision had established the defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Following a trial on damages, the jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $1,345,470 in past damages and $7,389,945 in future damages. The defendant appealed, challenging the speculative nature of the future loss of income award and the 5.15% discount rate applied by the Supreme Court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the lost income and that the discount rate was within the court's discretion.

Personal InjuryDamagesLost EarningsDiscount RateLabor LawAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyFuture DamagesEconomic LossJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 1998

Rodgers v. 72nd Street Associates

This opinion details the court's application of CPLR article 50-B for structuring periodic payments of future damages awarded to plaintiffs Frank and Kathleen Rodgers. Following a jury verdict where the Rodgers prevailed in their accident claims against the defendant, the court addressed complex calculations for past and future pain and suffering, lost wages, and annuity losses, accounting for Mr. Rodgers' comparative negligence. Justice Solomon resolved disputes regarding the discounting of lump-sum future awards, determined attorney's fees on periodic payments, and established appropriate discount rates based on actuarial practices and Treasury note rates. The final judgment specifies the amounts for past and future damages, attorney's fees for future payments, and the present value of the annuity contract the defendant is required to purchase.

periodic paymentsCPLR article 50-Bfuture damagesattorney's feeslump-sum awardsdiscount ratesannuity contractcomparative negligencepersonal injurystructured settlements
References
9
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

Roselli v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd.

This case involves a lawsuit under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act concerning injuries sustained by the plaintiff while unloading a vessel owned by the defendant. An earlier memorandum opinion on August 18, 1980, resolved all issues except the amount of damages. The court determined damages by considering stipulated medical expenses of $3,884.63, past lost wages of $41,434.00, future lost wages of $253,094.40, and damages for pain and suffering (past $50,000, future $126,000). The award components for lost wages were adjusted for a 13% effective tax rate and then discounted to present value using a 6% discount rate, as were future pain and suffering damages. Finally, the total award was reduced by 75% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence, resulting in a final award of $77,617.19 to be paid by the defendant.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActDamages CalculationLost WagesPain and SufferingFuture Income TaxesDiscount RatePresent ValueContributory NegligenceMedical ExpensesFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,234 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