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
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Lavine

In this Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to vacate the determination of respondents denying her application for payment of certain babysitting expenses. The petitioner, a recipient of public assistance, incurred these expenses to attend her brother's funeral in an emergency situation. She attempted to secure prior approval from the Social Services Office but was unable to reach her caseworker or supervisor. Upon her return, her request for payment was denied on the procedural ground of failing to obtain prior approval. The court found this determination to be arbitrary and capricious given the emergency circumstances and the department's lack of a procedure for such situations. The court vacated the determination and remitted the matter for consideration on the merits.

babysitting expensespublic assistanceemergency servicesprior approvalsocial services regulationsarbitrary and capriciousfair hearingOnondaga Countytemporary absenceprocedural grounds
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.

The debtor, Golden Distributors, Ltd., in a Chapter 11 case, moved to classify employee benefit claims, while several unions cross-moved for full administrative expense treatment. The court addressed the priority of sick leave, personal holidays, vacation, and severance pay for both union and non-union former employees. It concluded that most of these claims, including all severance pay and union vacation pay, qualify as administrative expenses or similar high-priority claims. However, all such employee claims were deemed subordinate to the super-priority secured liens held by the post-petition lenders.

BankruptcyChapter 11Administrative ExpensesEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementSuper-priority LiensDebtor in PossessionUnions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn & Hardart Co. v. Ross

This Article 78 proceeding reviewed an order from the Industrial Board of Appeals, entered November 17, 1976, which had found petitioners liable for pension payments to certain retired employees. The case originated when Horn & Hardart Company terminated its noncontributory pension plan in 1972 due to financial difficulties, prompting complaints from pensioners and an Industrial Commissioner's order for payment. Petitioners challenged the Commissioner's jurisdiction, but the court affirmed it, citing Labor Law § 198-c(2) and evidence of promised "lifetime pensions." While confirming the order's core, the court modified it to strike a provision that expanded its scope to all similarly situated retirees, noting that such an expansion was not originally contemplated and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) now governs such protections, even if pre-ERISA causes of action remain under state regulation.

Pension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsIndustrial Board of AppealsIndustrial Commissioner JurisdictionArticle 78 ProceedingRetirement BenefitsLabor LawERISAAdministrative RemediesJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wood v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Anthony N. Wood, severely injured while employed by the Town of Stillwater Highway Department, settled a third-party action against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for $1.1 million. The workers' compensation carrier, Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan, had a lien of over $63,000 for compensation and medical payments. Wood moved to apportion legal fees and expenses against the carrier's lien, arguing that the carrier's equitable share should consider the present value of estimated future benefits it would no longer have to pay, citing *Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund*. The Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan opposed, disputing the calculation of future benefits and arguing for consideration of potential future death benefits. The court, guided by *Kelly*, found the respondent's arguments lacked merit and applied a formula that included the lien amount plus the discounted value of future payments saved by the carrier. The court determined an equitable apportionment of $114,112.67, concluding that the offset exceeded the carrier's lien due to the substantial benefits the carrier received from the extinguishment of future obligations.

ApportionmentLegal FeesThird-Party ActionLien OffsetFuture Benefits CalculationEquitable ApportionmentSettlement ProceedsEconomist Expert WitnessPermanent DisabilityCarrier Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westmount Health Facility v. Bane

Petitioner, a Warren County nursing home, challenged the Department of Social Services' disallowances from its 1981-1983 cost reports for Medicaid reimbursement, specifically concerning payments into a self-insurance fund for unemployment and workers' compensation, and certain interest expenses. An Administrative Law Judge sustained the disallowances, but the Supreme Court granted the petition in its entirety. On appeal, the court held that the petitioner's payments into the County's self-insurance fund were akin to premium payments, not self-insurance, and were thus allowable costs, affirming Supreme Court on this issue. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court regarding the interest expense disallowance, finding that the petitioner had failed to adequately preserve its objection to this item. Consequently, the judgment was modified to dismiss the petition concerning the interest expense and, as so modified, affirmed.

Medicaid reimbursementself-insuranceworkers' compensationunemployment insurancecost reportsadministrative lawCPLR article 78interest expense disallowanceWarren CountyNew York
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leone v. Sheriff's Department

This case addresses whether a municipality, which has paid both salary and medical treatment costs to a police officer injured in the line of duty under General Municipal Law § 207-c, is entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment expenses from a schedule award received by the employee under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer, a self-insured municipality, deducted both wages and medical expenses from the claimant's schedule award. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision holding that the employer was not entitled to credit for medical payments from the schedule loss award. The court affirmed this decision, holding that medical expense payments made by a self-insured employer must be deemed Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 payments, for which the employer is not entitled to reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3). The court emphasized a liberal and harmonious interpretation of the relevant statutes to avoid disadvantaging police officers and firefighters.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersMedical ExpensesSchedule AwardReimbursementSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory InterpretationLine of Duty Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Rea Express, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether workmen's compensation payments for injuries sustained before a Chapter XI proceeding are administrative costs under Section 64a(l) of the Bankruptcy Act. The plaintiff, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., a surety, made these payments on behalf of the debtor in possession, REA, and sought reimbursement with priority. The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of St. Paul, categorizing these as administrative expenses, but the District Court reversed this decision. The District Court held that such pre-petition compensation liabilities are ordinary provable debts under Section 63a(6) and not administrative costs, which are intended for liabilities incurred during the administration period to preserve the estate. Equitable considerations cannot override the strict priorities outlined in Section 64a, and the surety, having been paid to assume the risk, suffers no inequity.

Chapter XIBankruptcy ActCosts of AdministrationWorkmen's CompensationSuretySubrogationPriority ClaimsPre-petition LiabilitiesDebtor in PossessionEquitable Considerations
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schenectady Ry. Co.

This case concerns the legal propriety of a Trustee's payment of monthly pensions to retired employees of the debtor, Schenectady Railway Company, which is undergoing Chapter 10 reorganization. A creditor sought to enjoin these payments, arguing they burden the mortgage liens, while the Transport Workers Union of America asserted that the pension payments were part of an assumed labor contract and proper operating expenses. The court found that the labor contract, including the pension provisions, was neither formally adopted nor rejected by the Trustee, but was used as a "yardstick or measure of obligations." Ultimately, the court ruled that the monthly pensions for the general group of retired employees constitute a part of operating expenses and should be paid by the Trustee. However, payments to three specific individuals (Messrs. Crippen, Lennehan, and Spangenberg) were directed to be withheld, as their benefits appeared to be gratuitous board actions rather than contract obligations, pending further action.

BankruptcyReorganizationPension PaymentsLabor ContractOperating ExpensesTrustee in BankruptcyExecutory ContractAnticipatory BreachUnion RepresentationCreditor's Rights
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,657 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