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 20, 1986

Claim of Foglia v. New York City Housing Authority

The claimant, a New York City Housing Authority police officer, sustained a compensable knee injury in 1974. The case was reopened in 1983 due to increased disability, and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was put on notice for potential liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The issue was whether there was an advance payment of compensation, which would relieve the Special Fund from liability. The claimant testified that he retired in 1983 but had been on limited duty performing clerical work at full salary since 1982 due to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that these full salary payments for lighter work constituted an advance payment of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that an advance payment of compensation relieved the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardAdvance PaymentSpecial FundReopened CasesDisabilitySchedule LossPolice OfficerLimited DutySubstantial EvidenceFactual Determination
References
2
Case No. ADJ8386503
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

KENNETH MORRIS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves a deputy sheriff seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The applicant was awarded an increased permanent disability rating of 83% from his prior 50% award. The defendant sought reconsideration arguing the increased disability payments were not retroactive to the original permanent and stationary date. The WCAB granted reconsideration, amending the findings to acknowledge two maximum medical improvement dates but affirming the applicant's entitlement to increased permanent disability payments retroactive to the earlier date. The WCAB also upheld the penalty for unreasonable delay in payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of Riversidedeputy sheriffpermanent disabilitypermanent and stationary datelife pensioncost of living adjustmentCOLALabor Code section 5814agreed medical evaluator
References
7
Case No. ADJ3292033 (LBO0369559) ADJ4279112 (LBO0369560)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

NORMA BARAJAS vs. DISNEYLAND RESORT, DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES

The defendant seeks reconsideration of a permanent disability award, arguing the 15% increase under Labor Code § 4658(d)(2) should only apply to payments made after 60 days from the applicant's permanent and stationary date. The applicant contends the increase applies to the entire award except for the first 60 days' payments due to the employer's untimely offer of modified work. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for further proceedings to clarify the application of the 15% increase. The Board noted that prompt permanent disability advances by the employer might exclude those payments from the § 4658(d)(2) calculation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisneyland ResortLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent disability awardpermanent and stationaryAgreed Medical Examinerstreating physicianoffer of modified workpetition for reconsiderationFindings and Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1983

Slatt v. Slatt

This case concerns a dispute between a divorced couple over a separation agreement from 1969. The plaintiff wife sought cost-of-living increases on a yearly bonus, in addition to monthly support payments. While cost-of-living increases were applied to monthly payments, they were not applied to the bonus for over a decade. The defendant husband conceded some miscalculations on monthly payments but argued the bonus was not subject to such increases, citing a six-year Statute of Limitations. The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiff on the bonus, but this dissenting opinion argues that the parties' consistent conduct over many years indicated the cost-of-living index did not apply to the bonus, thus advocating for a modification of the judgment.

separation agreementcost-of-living adjustmentspousal supportcontract interpretationstatute of limitationsmarital propertyappellate reviewdissenting opinionbonus paymentsNew York courts
References
1
Case No. ADJ7820332
Regular
Apr 21, 2012

RICHARD SANTOR vs. CITY OF LAKEPORT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an amended award concerning permanent disability indemnity for applicant Richard Santor. The Board found that the employer's initial offer of regular work, made before the applicant was declared permanent and stationary, satisfied the statutory purpose of returning employees to work. However, following a subsequent exacerbation of injury and a second permanent and stationary date, the employer failed to make a timely offer of modified work. Consequently, the Board ordered a 15% increase in permanent disability payments effective May 11, 2011, and a 10% penalty on those increased payments, reversing the WCJ's decision to strike the decrease in payments during an earlier period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulationsPermanent Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Offer of Regular WorkPermanent and Stationary DateTemporary Total DisabilityPQME ReportNotice of Intention
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Public Oversight Board

This case addresses the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (2-a) concerning death benefits for a surviving spouse and children upon the spouse’s remarriage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, a surviving spouse, was entitled to a lump-sum payment, and her two children's benefits should increase to 25% each immediately upon her remarriage. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the children's increased benefits should be delayed for two years, arguing for a pervasive 66% wage share maximum. The court rejected this argument, affirming the Board's decision, clarifying that the remarriage lump-sum payment is not an advance but a separate entitlement, and thus, the children's benefits increase immediately.

death benefitssurviving spouseremarriage benefitschildren's compensationWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationlump-sum paymentwage share maximumWorkers' Compensation Board decisionappellate affirmance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Durkin

The plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, initiated an action seeking a declaration that sections 213 and 213-a of the New York State Insurance Law prohibited the retroactive payment of a wage increase. This increase of $2.85 per week was awarded by the National War Labor Board to its insurance agents, dating back to the start of arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff argued these statutes, designed to prevent excessive post-facto compensation, made such retroactive payments unlawful. However, the trial court and Appellate Division, whose decision was affirmed, concluded that the statutes were not intended to interfere with the common practice of collective bargaining and arbitration, which frequently involves retroactive wage adjustments. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the insurance laws was to curb abuses like bonuses and gratuities, not to hinder ordinary and orderly wage-fixing mechanisms, thereby affirming the legality of the retroactive wage increase.

Insurance RegulationRetroactive CompensationCollective Bargaining DisputesWage Arbitration AwardNew York Insurance LawLabor Relations BoardStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court RulingEmployee Benefits LitigationContractual Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. ADJ4334434 (RIV 0047774) ADJ1332571 (VNO 0485919)
Regular
Sep 02, 2010

TARIK JUSUFBEGOVIC vs. FIESTA FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, STATE COMP. INS. FUND

This case concerns retroactive temporary disability payments for an admitted industrial injury. The applicant argued for higher retroactive payments based on an increased average weekly earnings determination and Labor Code section 4661.5, which mandates payment rates in effect at the time of payment if made more than two years after the injury. The Board reversed the WCJ, ruling that section 4661.5 applies even if some prior payments were made, as long as the payments are for temporary disability and occur more than two years post-injury. Therefore, the award was amended to reflect the higher indemnity rate in effect at the time of the Board's decision. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, favoring the WCJ's narrower application of the statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsLabor Code Section 4661.5Hofmeister v. Workers' Comp. AppealsBd.Permanent DisabilityRetroactive Temporary DisabilityMaximum Rate
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Glass

The petitioner, a paternal grandmother, sought foster care payments for three children who had been in her custody since July 30, 1988, following their placement by the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS initially provided payments until July 29, 1988, but subsequently denied further funding, asserting that the foster care placement had automatically terminated. The court, in reviewing the Commissioner's determination, held that under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (Social Services Law § 374-a), DSS, as the sending agency, retained jurisdiction and financial responsibility for the children. The court found that the voluntary 'discharge' of the children to the grandmother was an insufficient basis to terminate DSS's ongoing supervisory and financial responsibilities. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying foster care payments was annulled, and the petition seeking such payments was granted.

Foster careInterstate CompactSocial Services LawCPLR article 78Judicial reviewAnnulmentChild custodyFinancial responsibilityAgency responsibilityNew York law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,916 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