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

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MDL No. 2:08-MD-1954
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2011

In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated cases against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. following a data breach that exposed payment-card information. Financial Institution Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, implied contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and violations of various state consumer-protection laws. The court dismissed many claims, some with prejudice due to futility and others without prejudice with leave to amend, citing issues like the economic-loss doctrine, lack of direct contractual relationship, and insufficient pleading of reliance. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, allowing it to proceed.

Data BreachMultidistrict LitigationEconomic Loss DoctrineNegligenceBreach of ContractMisrepresentationConsumer Protection LawMotion to DismissPleading StandardsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
155
Case No. 01-36709-SAF-7, 01-36900-SAF-11, 01-36736-SAF-11, 01-36904-SAF-7, Adversary No. 03-3564
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2004

In Re Aurora Natural Gas, LLC

Edge Petroleum Operating Co., Inc. (Edge) sued Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. (Duke), and several debtor entities (Aurora, ANG Holdings, GPR, Golden Prairie) in bankruptcy court, seeking payment for natural gas sold. Edge claimed a perfected security interest in the gas and its proceeds under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 9.343, alleging Duke was liable for payment or conversion. Duke and the debtors moved for summary judgment, arguing Edge lacked a security interest or conversion claim and that the issue of payment was subject to a separate adversary proceeding. The court found Edge had a perfected security interest in the gas and proceeds, but genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Duke purchased the gas in the ordinary course of business and if payment had been made. Ultimately, the court denied Edge's motion for summary judgment, granted Duke's and the debtors' motions, and dismissed the adversary proceeding, concluding that Edge could not maintain a conversion claim and must pursue its secured claim in the debtors' bankruptcy cases if Duke had paid.

BankruptcySecurity InterestNatural GasProceedsConversionSummary JudgmentTexas Business and Commerce CodeUCC Article 9Automatic StayDebtor-Creditor
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LaCroix v. Syracuse Executive Air Service, Inc.

This case concerns whether Workers’ Compensation Law allows for lump-sum payment of "schedule loss of use" awards for permanent partial disability, or if payments must be made periodically. Claimant Marie LaCroix, a baggage handler, fractured her wrist and tore her rotator cuff, leading to a 75% loss of use of her left arm. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division affirmed a lump-sum payment. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute's directive for "periodically" payments precludes a lump-sum policy, unless specific commutation procedures for individual cases are followed, requiring actuarial reduction. The court emphasized that any departure from periodic payment must originate from the Legislature.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentPeriodic PaymentWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReimbursementEarning CapacityWage Loss
References
8
Case No. 533319
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Andrezej Szymanski

Claimant, an asbestos handler, filed an occupational disease claim for workers' compensation benefits due to binaural hearing loss from prolonged noise exposure. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and awarded claimant benefits for a 77.15% schedule loss of use. The carrier sought administrative review by the Workers' Compensation Board, which affirmed the WCLJ's decision. Claimant appealed, arguing that the carrier's payment was untimely and a late payment penalty should be imposed under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the carrier's application for Board review triggered a statutory stay of payment, making the payment received within 10 days of the Board's decision timely.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25(3)(f)Statutory StayLate Payment PenaltySchedule Loss of UseBinaural Hearing LossOccupational Disease ClaimAdministrative ReviewAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer-Carrier Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Second Injury Fund of Texas v. Garcia

George Garcia, Jr., who suffered the loss of a hand and subsequently the loss of use of a foot, sought workers' compensation benefits from the Second Injury Fund of Texas (SIF). The trial court found him totally and permanently incapacitated and awarded a lump-sum payment, disregarding a jury finding of partial incapacity. The SIF appealed, contesting the nature of the injury, the finding of total incapacity, the award of lifetime benefits, and the lump-sum payment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming that Garcia was entitled to total and permanent incapacity benefits and a lump-sum payment under the relevant Texas Workers' Compensation Act provisions, including sections 11a, 10(b), and 10(d) of Article 8306.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundTotal Permanent IncapacityLump-Sum BenefitsSpecific InjuryAppellate ReviewJury Finding DisregardStatutory InterpretationDiscovery DisputesExpert Witness Testimony
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Ilion v. County of Herkimer

Justice Abdus-Salaam dissents in part from the majority's decision, which held that a withdrawal payment owed by the plaintiff, Village of Herkimer, to the County for an Abandonment Plan should be discounted to present value. The dissent argues that the withdrawal payment was a lump sum contractual obligation, calculated based on an actuarial estimate of future workers' compensation claims, but represented an immediate present loss to the County when the plaintiff failed to make the payment on the due date of December 31, 2005. Therefore, the dissenting judge contends that the trial court correctly declined to discount the damages award to present value, as it remedied a present loss. The dissent also distinguishes this contract dispute from tort cases where future damages are typically discounted, and affirms the trial court's decision to apply interest from the date of the breach.

breach of contractdamagespresent value discountworkers' compensationlump sum paymentactuarial estimatedissenting opinioncontractual riskinterest calculationNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 5,113 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