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 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Ilion v. County of Herkimer

Justice Abdus-Salaam dissents in part from the majority's decision, which held that a withdrawal payment owed by the plaintiff, Village of Herkimer, to the County for an Abandonment Plan should be discounted to present value. The dissent argues that the withdrawal payment was a lump sum contractual obligation, calculated based on an actuarial estimate of future workers' compensation claims, but represented an immediate present loss to the County when the plaintiff failed to make the payment on the due date of December 31, 2005. Therefore, the dissenting judge contends that the trial court correctly declined to discount the damages award to present value, as it remedied a present loss. The dissent also distinguishes this contract dispute from tort cases where future damages are typically discounted, and affirms the trial court's decision to apply interest from the date of the breach.

breach of contractdamagespresent value discountworkers' compensationlump sum paymentactuarial estimatedissenting opinioncontractual riskinterest calculationNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. ADJ3711842 (ANA 0409880)
Regular
Jun 21, 2013

SEAN GILBERT vs. OAKLAND RAIDERS, ACE USA

This case concerns disputed attorney fees in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant seeks to correct a clerical error in the award regarding the distribution of permanent disability benefits between himself and his counsel. The defendant challenges the calculation of attorney fees, arguing they should be based on the present value of the award, not its full value, and claims improper ex parte communication by a DEU rater. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings to address these issues and ensure proper calculation and distribution of fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability IndemnityAttorney's FeesPresent ValueEx Parte CommunicationDEU RaterCross-examinationClerical ErrorLife Pension
References
0
Case No. ADJ3563222 (SRO 0126894)
Regular
Jul 25, 2013

SHARON KARR-REDDELL vs. CHRISTOPHERSON HOMES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a decision regarding attorney's fees awarded to applicant's counsel, John Bloom. The WCAB found the original decision erred by calculating fees based on the gross award rather than present value and by not commuting the life pension award for fee payment. The WCAB rescinded the prior order, awarding Mr. Bloom a total of $32,768.18 in attorney's fees based on the present value of both the permanent disability and life pension awards. These fees are to be paid as lump sums commuted from the respective awards through uniform reduction of future payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability AwardLife Pension AwardAttorney's FeeCommutationPresent ValueUniform Reduction MethodLabor Code Section 4659(c)State Average Weekly Wage
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2011

Seickel v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted a petition to extinguish a lien pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 and determined respondents’ equitable share of petitioner’s litigation costs. The appellate court modified the order, vacating the determination of respondents’ equitable share of litigation costs and remanding the matter for recalculation. The court held that petitioner’s projected future medical expenses are too speculative to be considered in calculating the total benefit to respondents. It affirmed the lower court's use of the Life Expectancy and Present Value Tables set forth in the Pattern Jury Instructions to determine the present value of future indemnity liability, rejecting the respondents' contentions regarding the use of other mortality or remarriage tables.

Workers' Compensation LawLien ExtinguishmentLitigation CostsEquitable ShareFuture Medical ExpensesSpeculative DamagesLife Expectancy TablesPresent Value TablesMortality TablesAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Parkhurst v. United Rentals Aerial Equipment, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by private insurance carriers and employers from three decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board directed the carriers to deposit funds into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) for uncapped permanent partial disability (PPD) awards, pursuant to a 2007 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (2). The carriers argued that this mandate was an improper retroactive application of the amendment and that the present value of uncapped awards could not be reliably calculated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the amendment applies prospectively to all PPD awards made after July 1, 2007, regardless of the injury date, and that the Legislature explicitly mandated the use of actuarial tables for present value computations, leaving no discretion to the Board.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityAggregate Trust FundLump-sum paymentStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityActuarial TablesUncapped AwardsAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1992

Theresa M. C. v. Utilities Mutual Insurance

The case involves an appeal by Utilities Mutual Insurance Company regarding an order from the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County. This order had extinguished the company's Workers’ Compensation lien and mandated a payment of $74,700 for legal fees related to a third-party action settlement. The third-party recovery stemmed from a legal malpractice action concerning the estate of Frederic C., whose widow received workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court found that the Surrogate's Court erred by failing to discount the total estimated future Workers' Compensation benefits to their present value when calculating the deficiency and the carrier's equitable share of legal expenses. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Surrogate's Court to determine the present value of future benefits using specified Workers' Compensation Law provisions and actuarial tables.

Workers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionLegal MalpracticeSettlement ApportionmentLegal FeesPresent Value CalculationFuture BenefitsSurrogate's CourtAppellate ReversalRemittal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lyublinsky v. Barnhart

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
References
3
Case No. MON 322663, LAO 0850418
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

DANIEL PAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found that the defendant must include projected future cost-of-living adjustments based on the State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) when calculating the present value of the permanent disability award to determine attorney's fees. The Board affirmed that a 4.7% SAWW adjustment, representing a 50-year average, is a rational basis for these calculations, and the defendant's contention of speculation was unfounded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityLabor Code Section 4659(c)State Average Weekly WagePresent Value of AwardCommutation of Attorney's FeesDisability Evaluation UnitAnnual Adjustments
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,018 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