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
Feb 05, 1980

Hospital Service Plan v. Warehouse Production & Sales Employees Union

The appellants, who are successors in interest to the original defendants, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The order denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to execute a 'satisfaction piece' after the appellants paid the judgment with interest calculated at the New York rate. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that according to the principles of full faith and credit, the judgment from New Jersey required interest to be paid at the 8% New Jersey rate, not the 6% New York rate. Additionally, the appellants were deemed responsible for the Sheriff's levy costs because they failed to properly serve the Sheriff with a stay of execution, thereby necessitating the levy.

Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditInterest RatesSheriff's LevySatisfaction PieceNew Jersey JudgmentNew York LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
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
Jan 26, 2005

County of Suffolk v. Coram Equities, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to compel the defendant to pay prevailing hourly wage rates for a building construction project. The case stemmed from a lease agreement where the defendant, as owner, agreed to construct a building and lease space to the plaintiff, including a clause for prevailing wages "in accordance with New York Labor Law Section 220." Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that Labor Law § 220 did not apply to the project. The courts reasoned that the construction did not qualify as a "public works project," a necessary condition for the application of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages was not a breach of the contractual agreement.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works DoctrineLease Contract DisputeLabor Law 220Contractual ObligationAppellate AffirmationConstruction WagesSuffolk County CourtsNew York State LawSpecific Performance Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. 604, 605, 674, 676, 694
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bruister & Associates

This case involves claims by over 1,700 cable technicians against DirecTV, Bruister and Associates, Inc., and Herbert C. Bruister for uncompensated off-the-clock work and other FLSA violations. The technicians allege a "culture of off-the-clock work" where they were expected to perform tasks like pre-calling customers, inventorying tools, pre-building dishes, and cleaning vehicles without pay, both before and after their recorded work hours. They also claim improper calculation of overtime rates and minimum wage violations for piece-rate workers. Defendants filed motions to decertify the collective action and to dismiss claims against DirecTV and Mr. Bruister, arguing that the technicians were not similarly situated and that individualized inquiries into damages would be too complex. The Court denied these motions, finding that common issues of liability predominated and that a collective action was appropriate given the relaxed burden of proof for damages in FLSA cases where employer records are inadequate. The Court also emphasized the importance of collective actions for plaintiffs with small individual monetary harms.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActWage and HourOvertimeUnpaid WagesOff-the-Clock WorkCollective ActionClass ActionDecertificationPiece-rate Pay
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lay v. Scott County Sheriff's Department

Jerry Brandon Lay, a deputy sheriff for Scott County Sheriff's Department, was injured in an automobile accident in October 2000, sustaining neck, shoulder, arm, and back injuries. He underwent surgery for a bulging disc and was rated with a 13% whole body disability, reaching maximum medical improvement in January 2002. After initially returning to the Sheriff's Department at the same pay, Lay voluntarily resigned for a higher-paying job, only to be rehired by the Sheriff's Department at a lower wage after his surgery. The trial court awarded Lay 60% permanent partial disability, believing the 2.5 times impairment rating statutory cap did not apply as he was not returned to the same position at the same wage. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, asserting that the 2.5 times cap applies when an employee has a meaningful return to work and resigns for reasons unrelated to the injury, regardless of later returning at a lower wage. Consequently, Lay's award was modified to 32.5% permanent partial disability, which is 2.5 times his 13% impairment rating.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMeaningful Return to WorkStatutory CapsVoluntary ResignationWage DiscrepancySpinal InjuryMedical Impairment RatingAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,625 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