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
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Paez v. Lackman Culinary Services

Claimant, an immigrant, injured his lower back while working as a food service worker in 2010. His workers' compensation claim was established, leading to surgery in 2012 for a herniated disc. Despite surgery, he continued to experience pain and was unable to return to his job. A WCLJ determined he had a permanent partial disability and an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board failed to consider total industrial disability, an issue he had raised before the WCLJ. The appellate court found that the Board did err by not addressing the total industrial disability claim and remitted the matter for further proceedings, as total industrial disability can have a more favorable outcome than loss of wage-earning capacity.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityTotal Industrial DisabilityLumbar DiscectomyLaminectomyMedical ExaminationRemittalAppellate ReviewBack InjuryFood Service Worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04344 [151 AD3d 1159]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Claim of Perez v. Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center

Claimant Roberto Perez, who sustained a work-related back injury in 2012, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision affirming a finding of a 10% loss of wage-earning capacity, despite his return to work at full wages. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that 'loss of wage-earning capacity' is distinct from 'wage-earning capacity.' It held that the former establishes a fixed durational limit on potential benefits, irrespective of current earnings, in case of future wage reductions due to the injury, thereby setting the duration of benefits, not the weekly rate. The court found no merit in claimant's remaining contentions.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawWorkers' Compensation LawWork-Related InjuryAppeal AffirmationStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dinger v. K-Mart Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on November 14, 1996. The claimant sustained a left ankle injury in April 1994, which required reconstructive surgery and resulted in a 20% schedule loss of use of his left foot. The Board awarded benefits, delineating periods of temporary total disability and permanent partial disability with a future wage expectancy rate. The claimant contended that the entire schedule loss-of-use award should be calculated at the future wage expectancy rate from the date of injury, arguing that the Board's calculation reclassified all prior periods as permanent partial disability. The court, however, found no such reclassification and no statutory mandate supporting the claimant's argument. Citing substantial medical evidence, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding its classification of the claimant's medical condition and benefit calculation.

workers' compensation benefitsschedule loss-of-usewage expectancytemporary total disabilitypermanent partial disabilityappellate reviewBoard decision affirmedmedical condition classificationsubstantial evidenceleft ankle injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Meade

This negligence action arose from an automobile accident where the defendant conceded liability, and a jury awarded the plaintiff damages for lost earnings, future medical expenses, future loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. A dispute arose regarding the reduction of the verdict due to the prohibition against recovering basic economic loss under Insurance Law § 5104 (a). The Supreme Court initially reduced the verdict by the amount the plaintiff received from other sources for lost wages ($38,977.94). On appeal, the court clarified that the proper methodology involves calculating the plaintiff's basic economic loss (including medical expenses and a portion of lost earnings) and reducing the verdict accordingly. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that the verdict should be reduced by $42,967.10, representing basic economic loss for lost earnings, and affirmed the judgment as so modified, resulting in a final judgment for the plaintiff of $265,905.70.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentDamagesLost EarningsMedical ExpensesBasic Economic LossInsurance LawVerdict ReductionCollateral Source RuleAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharpe v. Webb

The case concerns a plaintiff's claim for no-fault lost wage benefits after sustaining knee injuries in an August 2000 automobile accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was unemployed, having just relocated. He argued for compensation based on "demonstrated future earnings reasonably projected," specifically his delayed entry into the New York State Police Academy due to his injuries. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that his aspirational goal to join the police academy was too speculative at the time of the August 2000 application to qualify as reasonably projected future earnings. The decision emphasizes that the No-Fault Law requires some certainty of measurement for lost wages at the application date, aiming to compensate actual economic loss rather than provide for speculative future income.

no-faultlost wage benefitsfuture earningsunemploymentknee injuryState Police Academyinsurance claimseconomic lossstatutory interpretationNew York law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,857 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