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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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
Jul 09, 2002

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Claimant, a public assistance recipient, suffered a work-related injury while assigned to Niagara County through a work experience program. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and determined an average weekly wage based on public assistance benefits. After public assistance benefits were suspended, the claimant sought lost wage benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision, ruling that payments made under the work experience program constituted "wages" under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Niagara County and its third-party administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, thus precluding immediate appeal. The court noted that review could be sought if and when a final determination on wage replacement benefits is issued.

Wage DeterminationPublic Assistance BenefitsWork Experience ProgramInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionMedical Evidence SufficiencySchedule Loss of UseLost Wage ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewFinality of Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Stanislaw Majlinger, an undocumented immigrant, commenced an action for injuries sustained in a scaffold fall, asserting negligence and Labor Law violations. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss Majlinger's claim for lost earnings. They argued that federal immigration law, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd., precludes undocumented aliens from recovering lost wages for work not performed. The court acknowledged prior New York state precedents that allowed such recoveries but ultimately concluded that the Hoffman decision, interpreting the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), necessitated the dismissal of Majlinger's lost wages claim. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions, severing and dismissing the plaintiff's claim for lost wages.

Immigration LawLost WagesUndocumented AlienLabor Law ViolationsScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentIRCAHoffman Plastic CompoundsEmployment LawPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Claimant, a sanitation crew chief, injured his right ankle and foot at work and was awarded disability benefits. His self-insured employer paid his full weekly wages during a period of disability and timely sought reimbursement for these advanced payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the employer's reimbursement request against a 20% schedule loss of use award for the right foot. The Board affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed, arguing that reimbursement should not cover periods where no compensation awards were initially made. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that an employer is entitled to full reimbursement from a schedule loss of use award for advanced wages paid during disability, as schedule awards are not allocable to specific periods of lost work.

Schedule Loss of UseReimbursementAdvanced Wage PaymentsDisability BenefitsEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityTimely Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. 13-00-203-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2001

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

James Wisdom sued the City of Hidalgo for wrongful discharge, alleging he was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim under the Texas Labor Code. A jury found in Wisdom's favor, awarding damages for wrongful discharge, mental anguish, and lost wages. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Texas affirmed the jury's finding of a causal link between the workers' compensation claim and his termination, and upheld the award for future lost wages. However, the court reversed the mental anguish damages due to insufficient evidence. The court also found the past lost wages award excessive and suggested a remittitur of $31,700.00, affirming that part of the judgment conditionally on the remittitur.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' CompensationRetaliationEmployment LawSufficiency of EvidenceMental Anguish DamagesLost WagesRemittiturAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
48
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Lorenzo Ramirez, a former houseman for El Paso Airport Hilton, sued the company for wrongful termination under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging he was fired after sustaining two work-related injuries and filing compensation claims. A jury found in favor of Ramirez, awarding substantial damages for past and future mental anguish, future lost wages, and exemplary damages. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded the awards for future mental anguish and future lost wages due to insufficient evidence. However, the court upheld the jury's findings of wrongful termination, past mental anguish, and exemplary damages, with the possibility of partial affirmation conditional on Ramirez making a voluntary remittitur for future lost wages.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationEmployment DiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCircumstantial EvidenceCompany Policy DeviationDisparate Treatment
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,200 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