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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Perrin v. Builders Resource, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the reimbursement rate for home health aide services provided to a claimant by their sister. Initially, the carrier denied payment but was later directed to pay. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the reimbursement rate at $12 per hour for services starting in 2011, which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed, solely challenging this rate. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant was not an aggrieved party concerning the reimbursement rate, as the dispute was between the care provider (the sister) and the carrier. The court affirmed that the claimant received the care sought and could not raise issues on behalf of the care provider.

Workers' CompensationHome Health Aide ServicesReimbursement RateAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCare ProviderWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ProcedureNew York LawCarrier Liability
References
4
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

Vandewalker v. Snowball Tree Farm, Inc.

Claimant sustained a left foot injury in November 1982, leading to amputation and subsequent surgeries. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCU) initially found a 70% schedule loss of use, later increasing it to 100% after further medical examination in August 1987. The WCU awarded compensation at $105 per week, with a temporary total disability rate of $183.33 for a specific period. The employer appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board modified the award, asserting the permanent partial disability rate of $105 per week applied for the entire schedule loss. Claimant appealed this modification, arguing for the higher temporary total disability rate during the protracted healing period. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the injury was classified as a permanent partial disability dating from the accident, and therefore the maximum permanent partial disability rate of $105 per week was appropriate for the entire award period.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAmputationBenefit ModificationAppellate ReviewMedical Examiner ReportJudiciary LawFoot Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
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. ADJ13385386
Regular
Nov 17, 2020

ABRAHAM BERNAL vs. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the original decision regarding applicant Abraham Bernal's average weekly wage. The WCAB found the prior calculation of $\$1,383.39$ per week was erroneous as it diluted the applicant's earning capacity by using a lower hourly wage than his rate at the time of injury. The Board recalculated the average weekly wage based on actual hours worked, including overtime and holiday pay, at the applicant's established $\$27.00$ per hour rate. This resulted in an amended average weekly wage of $\$1,414.26$, increasing the temporary disability indemnity rate to $\$942.84$ per week.

ADJ13385386NIAGARA BOTTLING LLCSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANYVan Nuys District OfficePETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAVERAGE WEEKLY WAGESTEMPORARY DISABILITY INDEMNITYLABOR CODE § 4453(c)EARNING CAPACITYREGULAR WAGE
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

INA of Texas v. Smith

This workers' compensation appeal concerns Jessie L. Smith's claim for total hearing loss incurred during his employment at Texaco, Inc. The district court initially awarded Smith $217 per week for 160 weeks, based on a jury finding of cumulative injury on August 15, 1986, and good cause for delayed filing. The appellate court, presided over by Justice Brookshire, reviewed the compensation rate and duration. It determined that a previous stipulation limited the maximum compensation rate to $133 per week for employment prior to May 1, 1981, and that statutory provisions mandated compensation for 150 weeks, not 160. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and rendered to reflect a compensation rate of $133 per week for 150 weeks.

Workers' CompensationHearing LossOccupational DiseaseCumulative InjuryCompensation RateTimely FilingGood CauseStipulationAppellate ReviewMedical Expert Testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Picton v. Excel Group, Inc.

Ed Picton, a former employee of Excel Group, Inc., filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Picton claims Excel improperly characterized per diem payments as non-wages, leading to underpayment of overtime and incorrect tax returns. Excel moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were moot due to a settlement offer, their per diem policy was permissible as a group approximation of expenses, and Picton incurred no tools/equipment expenses. The court denied Excel's motion, finding Picton's claims were not moot as the settlement did not cover all requested relief (like attorney's fees and liquidated damages). The court ruled that per diem payments must be reasonably approximated on an individual basis, not a group basis, and there was no evidence Picton incurred excludable expenses for tools or travel.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayPer Diem PaymentsSummary JudgmentWage and Hour DivisionDepartment of LaborRegular Rate of PayEmployee ReimbursementFederal Employment LawDistrict Court Decision
References
12
Case No. 01-21-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

TASF, LLC D/B/A Turnaround Special Forces, LLC Eddie Garza, Clint Dewispelaera, Alex Castillo and John Ruff v. Turn2 Specilaty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC

The First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a temporary injunction issued against TASF, LLC, and its principals for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets from Turn2 Specialty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC. The misappropriated information included confidential base wage rates, billing rates, per diem amounts, contract terms, and vendor lists. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the information deserved trade secret protection and that Turn2 took reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. The court found one issue moot due to the expiration of a provision and modified the injunction to specifically define the protected trade secrets, ensuring clarity for the enjoined parties.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationConfidential InformationProprietary InformationBusiness PracticesContract TermsBilling RatesVendor ListsBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,912 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