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 Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Acme Backing Corp. & District 65, Distributive, Processing & Office Workers of America

This Per Curiam decision addresses a demand for arbitration that arose after a petitioner closed its Brooklyn plant and moved manufacturing to two factories in Missouri and Connecticut, controlled by separate corporations. The dispute involved conflicting interpretations of various articles within the collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning the bargaining unit, management's rights, prohibitions against strikes, lockouts, or subcontracting when employees were not working full-time, and the responsibilities of 'successors in interest.' The court affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion to stay arbitration, holding that controversies involving the interpretation or application of the agreement's provisions, or any breach thereof, are exclusively within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, not the courts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosingRelocation of ManufacturingManagement RightsUnion RightsSuccessors in InterestContract InterpretationStay of ArbitrationJurisdiction of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2008

Rylott-Rooney v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-Societa Per Azioni

Plaintiff Linda Rylott-Rooney filed a discrimination suit against her former employer, Alitalia, alleging age and national origin discrimination under New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Alitalia moved to dismiss, arguing the laws were inapplicable because Rylott-Rooney primarily worked and resided in Minnesota. The court denied Alitalia's motion, determining that the termination decision and the actual act of termination both occurred in New York, establishing a sufficient jurisdictional nexus for the New York human rights laws. The ruling distinguished between the location of the discriminatory act and where the impact of termination was felt, affirming that the former was sufficient for jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawJurisdictionLong-Arm JurisdictionWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
15
Case No. ADJ2610305 (WCK 63412) ADJ3981181 (WCK 63413) ADJ1135990 (OAK 339001)
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

CATHY D. KRAUS vs. VETERINARY SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a dispute over the correct temporary disability indemnity rate for an applicant injured in 2001. The applicant's original agreed rate was $420 per week based on $630 average weekly earnings, but a subsequent injury in 2006 led to payments at $480 per week. The WCJ awarded an indemnity rate of "at least $480 per week" for the 2001 injury, citing post-injury earnings as evidence of earning capacity. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and remanded for further proceedings. The Board emphasized that post-injury earnings should only be considered if scheduled or reasonably anticipated at the time of the 2001 injury, per *Kyllonen*, and noted insufficient analysis in the WCJ's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityAverage Weekly EarningsIndustrial InjuryShouldersLabor Code § 4656(c)StipulationsAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1997

McCauley v. McCauley

The case concerns a motion by the defendant, a former husband, to modify his child support and maintenance obligations following the termination of his employment. Justice Vito C. Caruso, of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, found that the defendant, despite losing his $41,000 per year research scientist position, had not made a diligent effort to find new employment. The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the defendant and, after careful consideration of the Child Support Standards Act and the Matter of Holmes v Holmes decision, determined that a $19 per week child support award would be unjust. Consequently, the court modified the maintenance obligation from $190 to $95 per week and set child support at $95 per week, with both parties sharing health care costs, to ensure the children's needs and standard of living were maintained. The defendant's motion was granted in part, resulting in a modification of the original September 23, 1994 divorce judgment.

Child Support ModificationMaintenance ModificationImputed IncomeJob Search DiligenceParental ObligationsDivorce JudgmentSchenectady CountyChild Support Standards ActStandard of LivingBest Interests of the Child
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. ADJ10442272
Regular
Oct 08, 2018

KENNETH EDDY vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant who sustained a prostate cancer injury arising out of employment as a fire captain. The administrative law judge found the injury caused 36% permanent disability, payable at $290 per week. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the rate should be $160 per week. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration because the defendant had previously stipulated to the $290 per week indemnity rate during trial without showing good cause to withdraw from the agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKenneth EddyCalifornia Department of ForestryState Compensation Insurance Fundprostate cancerpermanent disabilityindemnity ratestipulationgood causeWCAB Rule 10561
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carroll v. Fagan, Inc.

The claimant, a welder, was injured while commuting to work after his employer provided a per diem for living expenses due to the distant worksite. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, disallowing the claim. The claimant appealed, arguing entitlement due to the per diem financing travel and his status as an outside employee. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the per diem was for housing, not transportation, and that the claimant reported to a fixed location, thus his commuting injury was not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Commuting InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPer DiemFixed WorkplaceEmployment TravelCompensability of InjuryBoard Decision ReversalAppellate AffirmationEmployer Provided Lodging
References
7
Case No. ADJ3496351 (SAC 0319422)
Regular
Sep 27, 2010

SANDRA L. BOYD vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns whether lien claimant MBM Boutique Acupuncture could bill for multiple units of electro-acupuncture (CPT code 97801) per session. The defendant, County of Sacramento, argued that under the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS), 97801 is an untimed code billable only once per session. The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the defendant's expert bill reviewer's unrebutted testimony established 97801 as an untimed code, limiting reimbursement to one unit per session. Therefore, the defendant's payment was deemed reasonable and consistent with the OMFS, and the lien claimant was awarded nothing further.

Official Medical Fee ScheduleOMFS97801timed proceduresuntimed proceduresdeputy sheriffacupuncturereimbursementbill reviewerunit per session
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 611 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