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

Ramos v. Telgian Corp.

Plaintiffs sued Telgian Corporation for unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours compensation under FLSA and NYLL, challenging the defendant's Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) overtime calculation method. The court denied both parties' summary judgment motions on the FLSA and NYLL claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the fixed weekly salary and mutual understanding elements of the FWW scheme. It ruled that plaintiffs' work hours fluctuated as required by FWW, and Telgian's overtime calculation, despite a technical deviation, resulted in overpayment, preventing a finding of willfulness or actual injury. The court granted defendant's summary judgment motion on the spread-of-hours claim, concluding that this compensation only applies to minimum wage earners. The case will proceed to trial to determine whether plaintiffs received a fixed salary regardless of hours and if there was a clear mutual understanding of the FWW compensation.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime CompensationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentUnpaid WagesSpread-of-Hours PayMinimum WageEmployer LiabilityWage and Hour Dispute
References
37
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. ADJ10231913
Regular
Mar 24, 2017

MARK REED vs. RAPID FIX, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision due to an incorrect calculation of the applicant's average weekly wage. The Board found that the administrative law judge erred by not correctly applying Labor Code section 4453(c)(2), which governs aggregate earnings from multiple employers. Specifically, self-employment earnings must be capped at the hourly rate of the employer where the injury occurred if it exceeds that rate. The case is remanded for further proceedings to accurately determine the applicant's hourly earnings from self-employment and the average number of hours worked.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAverage Weekly WageTemporary Disability IndemnitySelf-Employment EarningsSchedule CForm 1040Schedule SELabor Code Section 4453(c)(2)Multiple Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. FRE 0131884
Regular
May 28, 2008

CARMEN E. SOLLARS vs. TARGET STORES

The Court of Appeal remanded this case for additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel after the defendant's petition for writ of review was denied. While applicant's counsel requested $8,640 based on 28.8 hours at $300/hour, the Appeals Board reduced the award. The Board found the requested rate and hours excessive, awarding $2,500 based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the result, work performed, and difficulty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Court of AppealRemittiturSupplemental AwardAppellate WorkHourly RateReasonable Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan

Plaintiff John A. Camardo, injured in 1983, sought disability pension benefits from the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan after being declared a 'voluntary quit' by General Motors Corporation. The Plan denied his application for forms, leading to a lawsuit under ERISA. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended denying the defendant's motions for dismissal and summary judgment and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the defendant's objections for procedural non-compliance, and ordered the Plan Administrator to provide the plaintiff with the necessary application forms for disability pension benefits.

ERISADisability PensionSummary Judgment MotionLocal Rule ViolationReport and RecommendationAdministrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Quit ClauseCollective BargainingEmployee Benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
Case No. ADJ9787852
Regular
Oct 18, 2016

CAROLINE NJOKI vs. 24 HOUR FITNESS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case affirms an award of temporary total disability benefits to an applicant injured while working for 24 Hour Fitness. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the employer failed to provide modified work within the applicant's medical restrictions. The employer's assertion that they offered modified work was contradicted by the applicant's credible testimony, which the Board credited. Therefore, the applicant's wage loss was deemed total, entitling her to ongoing temporary total disability benefits.

Temporary total disabilityModified workMedical restrictionsDriving restrictionCommuteGood faith offerWCJ credibilityHearsay evidenceLabor CodeRebuttal evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ7582253
Regular
Dec 13, 2011

CHRISTOPHER GONZALEZ vs. 24 HOUR FITNESS, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order finding Christopher Gonzalez's claim against 24 Hour Fitness timely. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which concluded that voluntarily provided medical treatment by the employer extended the statute of limitations to five years. Furthermore, the WCJ found the employer's denial notice failed to comply with notice requirements and contained ambiguous language, and that the applicant met the elements of equitable estoppel, preventing the employer from asserting the statute of limitations defense.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatute of LimitationsTollingStandard RectifierVoluntary Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 5402(c)Equitable EstoppelNotice Requirements
References
5
Case No. ADJ10138143
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

SHIRLEY BROWN vs. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER MERCED COMMUNITY CAMPUS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending a prior decision. The Board ruled that attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel should be based entirely on their reasonable hourly rate and hours worked, not a combination of hourly rate and a percentage of the recovery. This decision clarified that fees owed by an employer under Labor Code § 4064(c) for an unrepresented employee's attorney are determined by the reasonableness of hours and hourly rate, not the indemnity awarded. Consequently, the applicant's attorney was awarded $10,758.75.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesHourly RatePercentage of RecoveryLabor Code § 4064Declaration of Readiness to ProceedStipulations with Request for AwardQuantum MeruitIndemnity
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 689 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