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

Claim of Jones v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Division, GMC

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a self-insured employer’s entitlement to credit for holiday wages paid to disabled employees. Claimants Hanks and Jones were injured during employment, resulting in lost time, including holidays. The employer paid them compensation for lost time but also provided full wages for holidays as per collective bargaining agreements, subsequently seeking reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4)(a). The Board denied these reimbursement requests, stating that holiday pay was a contractual right and not intended to be in lieu of compensation. The appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions, ruling that denying reimbursement would lead to claimants receiving both full wages and compensation for the holidays, creating an imbalance. Therefore, the employer is entitled to reimbursement, and the matters are remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationHoliday PayReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementDisabled EmployeesLost WagesSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1990

Paone v. Westwood Village

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action at a construction site. The injured worker and his wife initially sued Westwood Village (owner) and Holiday Management Associates, Inc. (general contractor). Westwood and Holiday then filed third-party complaints against Colonial Mechanical Co. (subcontractor) and High Tech Heating Co. (subcontractor and employer of the injured plaintiff). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Colonial and High Tech, dismissing the third-party complaints. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Colonial and High Tech had no control over the work that caused the injury, thus absolving them of liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The court emphasized that the duty to provide a safe workplace rests with the party having authority to control the injury-producing activity, in this instance, Holiday as the general contractor.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityControl of Work Site
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruse v. Holiday Inn

The claimant, an assistant chef at Holiday Inn, suffered severe anaphylactic shock due to a shellfish allergy, which was exacerbated by preparing seafood dishes during his employment. After multiple severe attacks, medical tests revealed the allergy in 2000. He filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2001, alleging his allergic reactions constituted an accidental injury that rendered him unfit for his job. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found an accidental injury and awarded benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing against the finding of an accidental injury. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that severe allergies arising from workplace exposure can constitute a compensable accidental injury, especially when they aggravate a preexisting condition, and found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination.

Workers' CompensationAnaphylactic ShockShellfish AllergyOccupational InjuryAccidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionAggravation of ConditionCausal RelationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ecret v. Holiday Inn

A claimant was injured in November 1990 while working for Holiday Inn and filed for workers' compensation benefits in January 1995. Her claim was dismissed as time-barred by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board due to exceeding the two-year statute of limitations. The claimant argued for a waiver, asserting that the employer's awareness of her injury and direction to use employer-paid medical insurance constituted advanced compensation. The court, however, found that payments by an employer-paid insurance plan do not imply employer liability or recognition of such, differentiating from direct employer payments or provision of medical treatment. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision that no advanced compensation occurred to waive the statute of limitations, also rejecting the contention of an occupational disease.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTime-barred ClaimAdvanced CompensationEmployer LiabilityMedical InsuranceOccupational DiseaseWaiverAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrett v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

The court reviewed an appeal regarding the sufficiency of third-party complaints filed by the lessee, owners, and developers of a Holiday Inn (original defendants and third-party plaintiffs) against the Town of Greece (third-party defendant). The original negligence actions sought damages after a motel fire. The third-party plaintiffs sought contribution and indemnity from the town, despite the town having been previously dismissed from the primary actions due to owing no duty to the original plaintiffs. The court reversed the Special Term's decision, ruling that a third-party action for contribution or indemnity requires the third-party defendant to have violated a duty owed to the original plaintiff. As the Town of Greece owed no such duty, the third-party complaints were dismissed, aligning with established rules for joint tort-feasors and principles of unjust enrichment.

Third-party complaintContributionIndemnityNegligenceDuty of careMunicipal liabilityTort-feasorsUnjust enrichmentFire damagesCertificate of occupancy
References
34
Case No. OAK 0334529
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

IONE MCKAY vs. HOLIDAY INN, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in the case of Ione McKay v. Holiday Inn and Zurich Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report as the basis for their decision. Any perceived clerical error in the judge's report was noted but did not alter the outcome of denying removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportdenial of removalclerical erroradministrative law judgeHoliday InnZurich Insurance CompanyIone McKayOAK 0334529
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan v. Trico Products Corp.

A claimant who was totally incapacitated due to a work injury received regular wages for a holiday during their incapacitation period but no disability payment for that day. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed an award, refusing to credit the employer's holiday payment against the compensation award, asserting the payment was a private union-employer matter beyond its jurisdiction. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law section 25 (subd 4, par [a]), contending their oral request for setoff prior to the award satisfied the statutory filing requirements. While the court agreed the employer substantially complied with the filing requirements, it ultimately affirmed the denial of reimbursement. The court reasoned that there was no evidence the holiday payment was intended as a substitute for compensation payments, and claimants can receive both holiday pay and compensation benefits concurrently.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementHoliday PayOral ClaimEmployer LiabilitySetoffStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDaniel Ford, Inc. v. Local 259, United Automobile Workers

Plaintiff McDaniel Ford, Inc. laid off three employees, prompting a grievance by defendant Local 259 of the United Automobile Workers. An arbitrator ruled the layoff proper but awarded the employees holiday pay. McDaniel Ford petitioned to vacate the holiday pay award, but the case was removed to federal court. Judge Wexler affirmed the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration and judicial deference to such awards. The court denied McDaniel Ford's petition to vacate and ordered payment of the holiday pay.

Labor LawArbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeLayoff GrievanceFederal Court JurisdictionJudicial Review of ArbitrationUAWEmployer-Employee RelationsUSC Section 185
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of McQueer v. Adirondack Tank Services, Inc.

This case concerns appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant’s entitlement to resumed indemnity payments. The claimant suffered work-related injuries and settled a third-party action, leading to a stipulation for a carrier’s offset holiday from indemnity payments for 198.72 weeks. After the holiday was deemed expired by a WCLJ in January 2009, and the claimant sought to resume payments in July 2012, the Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. The carrier appealed, arguing a departure from precedent regarding the claimant's burden to prove continuing disability during the holiday. The appellate court affirmed the Board, finding its decision supported by substantial evidence and that the stipulation did not require the claimant to demonstrate ongoing disability.

Workers' Compensation OffsetThird-Party SettlementIndemnity PaymentsCarrier Holiday ExpirationStipulation AgreementMedical EvidenceTotal Temporary DisabilityAppellate ReviewBoard PrecedentReconsideration Denial
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 81 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