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

Freeman's Furniture Co. v. Large

Walter C. Large was hired by Freeman’s Furniture Company to paint a building at $3.50 an hour, using his own brushes and ladder. He injured his back after five weeks. The Chancellor initially found him an employee and awarded benefits. However, the appellate court reversed this, ruling Large was a casual employee under T.C.A. § 50-906(b) because painting was not part of the employer's normal business operations. The court found no material evidence to support the trial judge's finding of an employer-employee relationship, emphasizing that the facts did not meet the exceptions for converting casual employment status.

Workers' CompensationCasual EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of Business OperationsAppellate ReviewMaterial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationPainting ContractorLabor LawTennessee Law
References
3
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

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. ADJ9686274
Regular
Dec 04, 2019

LEON REINGOLD vs. LARG ENTERPRISES dba HIGH STAR AUTO CENTER, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration in the case of Leon Reingold v. LARG ENTERPRISES. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who determined that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The ALJ's decision was based on significant credibility issues with the applicant's testimony and inconsistent medical history provided. The loss of surveillance video evidence, which was under the applicant's control, further supported the denial.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ credibility determinationIndustrial injuryCourse of employmentContradictory testimonyPre-existing conditionsContemporaneous medical reportLoss of video evidenceLabor Code § 3600
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Baker

The case addresses whether a workers’ compensation carrier can seek full reimbursement from a third-party settlement, including amounts paid from an employer’s deductible. The Texas Legislature mandated that carriers offer deductible plans, with carriers making all benefit payments and employers reimbursing the deductible periodically. When an employee is injured by a third-party tortfeasor, the carrier is subrogated to the employee’s rights. The core dispute is if reimbursing the carrier for the deductible amount violates the Insurance Code’s prohibition against requiring an employee to pay any part of the deductible. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that such reimbursement from a third-party recovery is permissible, as the funds originate from the responsible third party, not the employee, and is consistent with established subrogation laws.

Insurance DeductibleSubrogation RightsThird-Party RecoveryStatutory InterpretationEmployer ReimbursementEmployee RightsAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentInsurance CarrierLabor Code
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Kaleida Health

Six plaintiffs, including registered nurses and respiratory therapists, initiated a putative collective/class action against Kaleida Health and its associated entities. They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages, overtime, and improper meal break deductions. The court addressed four motions: plaintiffs' class certification requests for meal break and rounding policies, and both parties' summary judgment motions. The judge denied all of the plaintiffs' motions and granted the defendants' motions, striking the rounding class certification, denying the meal break class certification, and largely granting summary judgment to Kaleida regarding certain NYLL claims for three plaintiffs. The court found no evidence of a uniform system-wide policy for wage violations and upheld the employer's right to delegate reporting procedures for missed meal breaks.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawClass ActionWage and Hour DisputeOvertime PayMeal Break PolicyRounding PolicySummary JudgmentClass CertificationHourly Employees
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hegar v. Sunstate Equip. Co.

Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, which rents heavy machinery, included delivery and pick-up fees in its Cost-of-Goods-Sold (COGS) deduction under Texas Tax Code section 171.1012. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Glenn Hegar, audited Sunstate and disallowed these deductions, leading to an assessment of nearly $130,000 in taxes and $11,000 in penalties and interest. Sunstate paid under protest and sued for a refund, winning at the trial court. On appeal, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Sunstate's delivery and pick-up costs are not eligible for COGS deduction under section 171.1012(k-1) or section 171.1012(i). The Court clarified that the deduction is for costs of acquiring or producing the equipment, not for selling or distributing it.

Franchise TaxCOGS DeductionTax CodeHeavy Equipment RentalDelivery FeesPick-up FeesTax AuditSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1978

M. H. v. J. H.

This case addresses a motion by the Brewery Workers Pension Fund to vacate a payroll deduction order issued by the Family Court. The order required the Pension Fund to deduct $35 per week from a retired respondent's pension for child support, benefiting the petitioner. The Pension Fund contended that the deduction violated its plan's anti-alienation provision, was not authorized by section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, and was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court denied the Pension Fund's application, ruling that New York State law permits such deductions for child support despite pension plan restrictions and that ERISA's anti-assignment provisions do not prohibit court-ordered garnishments for support obligations, distinguishing them from voluntary assignments.

Child SupportPension GarnishmentERISA PreemptionPayroll Deduction OrderFamily LawSupport EnforcementAnti-Alienation ClausesState Law vs. Federal LawVoluntary vs. Involuntary TransferNew York Judiciary
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Argonaut Insurance Co.

This case addresses an insurance company's right to be reimbursed for workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured employee, specifically concerning reimbursement from an injured employee who receives benefits under a deductible plan insurance policy. The Bakers appealed the trial court's decision allowing Argonaut Insurance Company to recover the full amount of benefits paid to Anthony Baker, arguing that the recovery included the employer's deductible amount, which is forbidden under Texas law. The Bakers also challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees. The appellate court agreed with the Bakers, modifying the trial court’s order to reduce Argonaut’s award by the deductible amount and reversing the attorney's fee award, remanding that issue for further proceedings. The court held that the deductible amount cannot be recovered from the employee's settlement proceeds.

workers' compensationinsurance reimbursementdeductible plansubrogation rightsattorney's feesstatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance Codethird-party recoveryemployer liability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 669 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