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

Claim of Cruz v. City of New York Department of Children's Services

Claimant, injured in an automobile accident while working, received workers' compensation benefits and later settled a third-party action. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the self-insured employer was not entitled to offset the third-party settlement against a schedule loss of use (SLU) award, even for the portion initially designated as temporary total disability. The employer appealed, arguing the offset was permissible because the weekly award exceeded statutory thresholds for basic economic loss. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule loss of use award is not allocable to any specific period of disability and thus is not subject to offset under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 against first-party benefits, regardless of initial labeling or monthly rate.

Schedule Loss of Use Award OffsetThird-Party SettlementTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityBasic Economic LossNo-Fault LawInsurance LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Appellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karmilowicz v. Allstate Insurance

The petitioner was injured in a 1977 motor vehicle accident, leading to a no-fault insurance claim. Following an arbitration award, the petitioner moved to confirm and the respondent cross-moved to vacate, arguing the arbitrator erred by not allowing a Social Security benefits setoff for the petitioner's wife and child. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the court found the Supreme Court applied an incorrect standard of review for compulsory arbitration. The appellate court concluded that the arbitrator's failure to apply the mandated Social Security offset, as per Insurance Law § 671 and 11 NYCRR Part 65, lacked a rational basis and would create an unintended windfall for the petitioner. Consequently, the judgment was modified, denying the confirmation of the arbitration award, partially granting the cross-application to vacate, and remanding the case for recomputation of the award, while affirming the attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceArbitration Award ReviewCompulsory Arbitration StandardsSocial Security Benefits SetoffDependent BenefitsLost Earnings CalculationInsurance RegulationsCPLR Article 75Insurance LawAppellate Review Standard
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Figelman v. Goldfarb

This case involves an appeal by an employer and the State Insurance Fund from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the Fund's request to offset future workers' compensation benefits against a claimant's third-party settlement proceeds. The claimant, injured in 1988, received a third-party settlement of $225,000 in 1992, after which the Fund sought to offset a $5,520 award for lost earnings during an initial abeyance period (March-August 1988). The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the offset, a ruling upheld by the appellate court. The court reasoned that the $5,520 award constituted "basic economic loss" under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) and was therefore exempt from offset provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (4) due to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a). Additionally, the Fund's failure to explicitly reserve its right to offset against this specific award at the time of the third-party settlement further supported the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party SettlementOffset RightsBasic Economic LossInsurance LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial DisabilityAutomobile Accident ClaimState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1988

Valente v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

This case details a petitioner's appeal regarding an arbitration award. The Supreme Court of Richmond County initially reduced the award by allowing an offset for workers' compensation payments. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing a contractual agreement within the petitioner's insurance policy. However, the appellate court also upheld that the offset could not reduce the award for the petitioner's pain and suffering below $10,000, a minimum amount guaranteed for non-economic loss under the mandatory uninsured motorist endorsement as per Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (1).

Arbitration awardWorkers' compensation offsetUninsured motorist coverageContractual agreementNon-economic lossAppellate reviewCPLR Article 75Insurance Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamal v. Gohel

This case involves an appeal by the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to extinguish SIF's right to claim a credit or offset against Workers' Compensation death benefits and to compel reinstatement and retroactive payment of these benefits. The plaintiff had initially received death benefits from SIF after her husband's work-related death, and also won a jury award in a wrongful death action against a third party. SIF later asserted a right to a credit or offset against the death benefits for the jury award proceeds, suspending payments, which the plaintiff challenged. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that primary jurisdiction for determining the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law, particularly regarding an insurer's right to claim a credit or offset, rests with the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the Supreme Court.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance FundCredit or OffsetPrimary JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyStatutory RightsDeath Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1993

Lyons v. National Union Fire Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment by the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding an arbitration award. The Supreme Court initially granted the petitioner's request to confirm the arbitration award and denied the appellant's cross-application to reduce it by workers' compensation benefits. On appeal, the order and judgment was modified, granting the appellant's cross-application and thereby reducing the award to the petitioner based on an insurance policy provision. The appellate court affirmed that the petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest on the adjusted amount. This decision highlights the enforceability of insurance policy offsets for workers' compensation benefits against uninsured motorist endorsements.

Arbitration awardWorkers' Compensation benefitsUninsured motorist endorsementInsurance policy offsetPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewJudicial modificationKings CountyCPLRContractual reduction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Di Gregorio v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.

Claimant was initially awarded weekly workers' compensation benefits with an offset due to receiving Social Security survivor benefits following her husband's work-related death in 1997. After claimant's Social Security survivor benefits were retroactively terminated as of January 2003, she sought modification of her workers' compensation award to remove the offset. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge agreed to modify the award, the Workers' Compensation Board later overturned this, applying the offset until August 22, 2003. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's finding regarding the finality of the initial award but modified the decision by reversing the offset for awards made after January 2003, acknowledging the retroactive termination of Social Security benefits. The court maintained the offset for benefits between December 1997 and January 2003 to prevent unjust enrichment and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' CompensationSocial Security Survivor BenefitsBenefit OffsetRetroactive PaymentsStatutory ConstructionAppellate DecisionAdministrative ReviewCase RemittalWorkers' Compensation Law § 16 (1-c)Finality of Awards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darrell W. Garza/Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp.

Darrell W. Garza was terminated by Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. for violating a safety rule. He pursued arbitration, leading to an award of reinstatement with a thirty-day leave without pay, but without explicit mention of back pay or offsets. Garza then filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the arbitration award and an award of back pay. The trial court confirmed the award and granted back pay with an offset for interim earnings. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment regarding back pay, concluding that the trial court lacked the authority to modify or interpret the arbitration award to include back pay or offsets because neither party sought clarification or modification within the statutory ninety-day period. The court rendered judgment confirming the original arbitration award as written.

arbitrationemployment lawwrongful terminationback payinterim earningsjudicial reviewarbitration awardFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration Actaward modification
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,908 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