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 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cedeno v. Pacoa

The Workers' Compensation Board assessed a $500 monetary penalty against claimant's counsel for an unsubstantiated request to change the hearing venue from Queens/Nassau to White Plains, Westchester County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially assessed $250. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample support for the assessment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The court ruled that the Board had authority to increase the penalty and overlooked a procedural defect regarding who filed the appeal, treating it as filed by counsel.

Workers' CompensationVenue ChangeCounsel FeesMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural MotionUnpreserved ArgumentSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Authority
References
5
Case No. 2019-01-0122
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Lowder, William v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.

William Lowder, a driver for XPO Logistics, developed hernias on January 2, 2019, after delivering solar panels. XPO Logistics initially denied the claim but later accepted it as part of an ongoing mediation process. Mr. Lowder then requested a 25% penalty for the late payment of temporary disability benefits, specifically temporary partial disability benefits. The Court assessed a $1,098.71 penalty against XPO Logistics under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-205(b)(3)(A) for failing to pay temporary disability benefits within twenty days of having knowledge of Mr. Lowder's disability, rejecting XPO's arguments that the penalty only applied to temporary total disability benefits or required a finding of 'bad faith'.

Workers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentTemporary Disability BenefitsLate PaymentHernia ClaimStatutory InterpretationBad FaithTennessee LawEmployer LiabilityDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. New York City Department of Human Resources Administration

Claimant received workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries and settled a third-party action for $725,000. The employer and carrier consented, expecting satisfaction of their lien and a future credit. Claimant sought reimbursement for legal expenses, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) declined an award without a closing statement. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision and assessed a $500 penalty against claimant’s counsel for pursuing proceedings without reasonable grounds. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported the counsel fee assessment because the application for Board review was unnecessary given the requirement for a signed closing statement.

Workers' Compensation LawMonetary PenaltyCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementCarrier's CreditLien SatisfactionLegal Expenses ReimbursementClosing Statement RequirementBoard ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banton v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after the claimant was injured. Counsel sought a change of venue, citing a purported "Board Rule 10.01 (1) (c)" which the Workers’ Compensation Board found to be non-existent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request and assessed penalties against counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) and (ii). On administrative appeal, the Board rescinded the penalty under § 114-a (3) (i) but increased the penalty under § 114-a (3) (ii) due to the appeal lacking reasonable basis. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that counsel had been previously warned about citing the inaccurate "Board Rule" and that clarification on venue application rules was available before the administrative appeal was filed.

Attorney MisconductVenue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative AppealSubstantial EvidenceLegal TreatiseProcedural MotionUnreasonable GroundsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 525867
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Murtha v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.

Claimant Bryon J. Murtha sustained injuries while working for Verizon New York Inc. and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A WCLJ established the claim and later denied authorization for surgery, assessing a penalty against claimant's counsel, Grey and Grey, LLP, for dilatory tactics. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the denial of surgery but found the WCLJ improperly assessed the penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (c), instead assessing it under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) for the firm's alleged failure to ensure physicians' availability for depositions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's assessment of a penalty against Grey and Grey, LLP, finding that Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) does not authorize penalties against counsel, and even if it did, substantial evidence did not support the claim that the firm was responsible for the physicians' non-compliance with subpoenas, as enforcement was the carrier's responsibility.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMonetary Penalty AssessmentDilatory TacticsAttorney MisconductStatutory AuthorizationAppellate ReviewMedical DepositionsSubpoena EnforcementCarrier ResponsibilityClaimant Counsel
References
5
Case No. W2021-00448-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2022

Jase Enterprises, LLC v. Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation

Jase Enterprises, LLC appealed a penalty assessed by the Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage. The administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Chancery Court both upheld the penalty, although the ALJ modified the amount. Jase argued that its due process rights were violated and that the penalty assessment was arbitrary, particularly questioning the employment status of Joe Sheldon. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Jase received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The court found that the penalty assessment was supported by substantial and material evidence, including Sheldon's deposition. Jase's request for attorney's fees was also denied.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePenalty AssessmentDue ProcessAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceContested Case HearingCivil PenaltyTennessee Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic Insurance Co. v. Oakley

This case concerns an appeal by Texas insurance companies contesting retaliatory insurance taxes assessed by the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance for the years 1974-1977. The plaintiff companies, writing fire, casualty, and workers' compensation insurance in Tennessee, argued that Texas's effective tax rate on gross premium receipts, after considering investment credits, was lower than Tennessee's, thus negating the basis for a retaliatory tax. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that for retaliatory tax purposes, only the basic tax rates of the states should be compared, not rates after accounting for investment credits. The Court concluded that Texas's basic rate of 3.85% was indeed higher than Tennessee's 2%, justifying the 1.85% retaliatory tax, and also upheld the assessment of penalties.

Retaliatory TaxInsurance LawGross Premium TaxInvestment CreditsStatutory InterpretationTaxationForeign CorporationsAppellate ReviewTennessee Supreme CourtTax Penalties
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 2,388 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