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

Bryant v. New York Transit Authority

The case concerns cross-appeals from decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a bus driver's involuntary retirement and lost earnings. The claimant suffered a seizure and physical injuries, leading to disability retirement. The Board initially found involuntary retirement due to permanent partial disability but shifted the burden to the claimant to prove subsequent lost earnings were causally related to his disability after May 13, 2004, concluding his failure to seek work caused the loss. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred in shifting the burden to the claimant, as an involuntary retirement due to a permanent partial disability infers post-retirement lost earnings are due to that disability. The court emphasized that merely not seeking work post-retirement does not defeat this inference or shift the burden. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Involuntary RetirementPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Earnings CausationBurden of Proof ShiftRebuttable PresumptionFailure to Seek WorkAppellate ReversalRemittiturBus Driver DisabilitySeizure-related Injuries
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Leak

The petitioner, who was shot in 1991, applied to the Crime Victims Board for compensation, including lost earnings and vocational rehabilitation. The Board initially awarded compensation for property loss and medical expenses, and later counsel fees. Petitioner appealed the denial of lost earnings and vocational rehabilitation. The Board's denial was based on insufficient evidence of prior employment and occupational limitations. The court affirmed the Board's denial, finding the proof for lost earnings highly speculative and the need for vocational rehabilitation not established. However, the court modified the counsel fee award from $65 to $80, correcting an error regarding the petitioner's retainer payment.

Crime Victims BoardLost EarningsVocational RehabilitationCounsel FeesCPLR Article 78Executive LawSubstantial EvidenceBurden of ProofCompensation DenialAlbany County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC

Justice Ellerin's dissenting memorandum argues that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) does not preempt state labor laws concerning an undocumented alien's recovery of lost wages. Ellerin contends that denying such recovery would undermine IRCA's purpose by enabling employers who violate the act to benefit from their unlawful conduct. The dissent emphasizes that Congress did not intend for IRCA to supersede state common law remedies for lost wages in tort actions, citing legislative history. It further asserts that awarding lost earnings to undocumented aliens aligns with state policy and does not significantly impede IRCA's objectives. Therefore, the dissent concludes that New York law should govern, allowing a jury to determine the plaintiff's potential earnings.

Immigration Reform and Control ActIRCA PreemptionUndocumented Workers RightsLost WagesState Labor LawFederal PreemptionEmployer SanctionsTort DamagesSummary JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Virtuoso v. Chevrolet

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury and later lost employment with his employer due to a disagreement, not his injury. He subsequently received unemployment benefits and performed work for his wife's business. Despite claiming a worsening back condition limited his work ability, he was evasive about his income from these subsequent employments. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for reduced earnings, finding no causal link between his lost employment income and his back condition, and noting his failure to provide income details. This appeal affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no evidence to warrant a reduced earnings award.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsWork-related InjuryCausationLoss of EmploymentIncome EvasionUnemployment BenefitsBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2006

Velasco v. Green-Wood Cemetery

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for future lost earnings. The plaintiff had previously been granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to counter the defendants' showing that he returned to work four months post-accident. While the Workers' Compensation Board found a 'permanent partial disability' and awarded benefits, these benefits only covered the four-month period immediately following the accident, with no finding of inability to return to work. The anticipated expert testimony was deemed not to be 'evidentiary proof in admissible form'.

Summary JudgmentLost EarningsFuture Lost EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor LawWorkers' Compensation BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceVocational RehabilitationOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Housing Authority of Crystal City v. Lopez

Ricardo Lopez sued the Housing Authority of the City of Crystal City, Texas, alleging retaliatory discrimination under the Whistleblower Act after reporting potential conflicts of interest and violations to HUD. The trial court awarded Mr. Lopez damages for past lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Housing Authority challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for all awards. The appellate court reversed the awards for future lost earning capacity and mental anguish, reduced the past lost earnings award, and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. However, the court affirmed the jury's finding of retaliation and malice, upholding the award for exemplary damages.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DiscriminationLost EarningsMental AnguishExemplary DamagesMalicePublic EmployeeHousing AuthorityEmployment LawTexas Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1983

Heitner v. Government Employees Insurance

This case clarifies the method for calculating "first party benefits" in no-fault automobile insurance claims concerning lost earnings. The Appellate Division reversed a Special Term decision, holding that disability benefits, along with the 20% lost-earnings deduction, should be subtracted from the claimant's gross lost monthly earnings, not from the statutory $1,000 lost-earnings ceiling. The court emphasized that the $1,000 limit represents the maximum recovery from the insurance carrier, and this interpretation prevents unwarranted windfalls to insurance companies while ensuring claimants receive intended benefits. This aligns with the consumer-oriented legislative intent of the no-fault provisions to compensate accident victims for economic loss without double recovery.

No-fault insurancedisability benefits deductionlost earningsinsurance lawstatutory interpretationbasic economic lossfirst-party benefitswage-loss calculationautomobile accident claimcollateral source offset
References
12
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

Claim of Fellner v. Country Wide Insurance

This case addresses whether the State Insurance Fund, as a workers' compensation carrier, can offset a claimant's third-party tort recovery against future compensation benefits for earnings lost more than three years after the accident. The court examined Workers' Compensation Law § 29, specifically its interaction with no-fault insurance provisions (Insurance Law, Article 18). While WCL § 29(1-a) limits the carrier's lien and offset rights for benefits paid in lieu of 'first party benefits' (basic economic loss), the court clarified that 'basic economic loss' excludes earnings lost beyond three years post-accident. Therefore, the limitation in WCL § 29(1-a) does not apply to compensation benefits representing earnings lost beyond this three-year period. The court reversed the board's decision, which incorrectly held that no credit could be taken until $50,000 in benefits were paid, and remitted the matter for proceedings consistent with its finding that the State Insurance Fund is entitled to offset against compensation benefits for earnings lost more than three years after the accident.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Insurance Law § 671No-Fault BenefitsThird-Party RecoveryCompensation LienOffset of BenefitsBasic Economic LossLost EarningsStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,568 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