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

Schmidt v. Falls Dodge, Inc.

The claimant was awarded a 21.43% schedule loss of use for binaural hearing loss in 2007. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that this award was not subject to temporary disability benefits the claimant was already receiving from earlier workers' compensation cases. The employer and State Insurance Fund appealed, contending that a Court of Appeals decision overruled prior holdings regarding the overlap of schedule and nonschedule awards. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between schedule awards for future earnings loss and nonschedule awards for temporary disability during a limited time frame, concluding they do not overlap.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary DisabilityBinaural Hearing LossAward OverlapAppellate DecisionInsurance FundEmployer LiabilityMedical BenefitsEarnings Loss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant suffered compensable right knee injuries in 1992 and 1994, leading to a stipulated 22.5% schedule loss of use award in 2001, after which the cases were closed. Upon reopening in 2005, liability shifted from the employer's workers' compensation carrier to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Following a recurrence of injuries in October 2005, the Fund sought a credit for the prior schedule loss of use award paid by the carrier, which was initially denied but later granted by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that the Fund should not receive credit for awards commencing more than two years prior to the transfer of liability, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) and prior case law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that the Fund assumes the carrier's rights and responsibilities, including any existing credits, and distinguished the cited precedent based on a lack of injury reclassification in the current case.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSchedule Loss of Use AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCredit Against AwardsLiability TransferRecurrence of InjuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionStipulationCase Reopening
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Edward Axel Roffman Associates, Inc.

The petitioner, referred to as the Union, moved to confirm an arbitrator's award, while the respondent, the employer, cross-moved to vacate the award and enjoin arbitration, arguing pre-emption by a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) grievance. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement concerning 'outside work' sent to other plants. During the arbitration hearing, the employer walked out after the arbitrator ruled to take evidence on the out-of-state plant, believing the issue was exclusively under NLRB jurisdiction. The court distinguished precedents cited by the employer, finding that a mere grievance, without a prior NLRB determination, does not establish res judicata or pre-emption. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to confirm the arbitrator's award and denied the employer's cross-motion.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationArbitrator's AwardNational Labor Relations BoardLabor DisputePre-emption DoctrineRes JudicataVacate AwardConfirm AwardWalkout from Hearing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwasnik v. Willo Packing Co.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner from an order that vacated a prior judgment which confirmed an arbitrator's award. The petitioner was discharged for alleged theft, but an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement. The respondent sought to overturn this, initially alleging fraud and later presenting 'newly discovered evidence' after the petitioner gave conflicting testimony in a co-worker's trial. Special Term granted the respondent's motion, vacating the prior judgment. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that newly discovered evidence is not a valid ground for vacating an arbitrator's award under CPLR 7511, and that the evidence presented was either previously available or merely impeaching. The original judgment confirming the arbitrator's award was thus reinstated.

Arbitration AwardVacaturReinstatementCollective BargainingFraud AllegationsNewly Discovered EvidenceCPLR 7511Appellate ReviewWitness CredibilityDischarge for Misconduct
References
3
Case No. 267 AD2d 668
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

In re the Arbitration between Civil Service Employees Ass'n & State

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court concerning two proceedings. Proceeding No. 1, initiated by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA) on behalf of Garmon Carnibucci, sought to confirm an arbitration award regarding the restoration of sick leave accruals for Carnibucci, who was terminated by the Division For Youth (DFY) under Civil Service Law § 71. Proceeding No. 2, commenced by Carnibucci, sought to hold DFY in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior judgment mandating back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and found no contempt, prompting an appeal from the petitioners. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in proceeding No. 1, determining that CSEA was not an aggrieved party since the relief it sought (confirmation of the award) was granted. In proceeding No. 2, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the appointment of a Referee to assess back pay calculations and concluding that DFY was not in contempt due to the lack of specificity in the prior judgment regarding the computation of back pay.

arbitration awardback pay disputesick leave accrualscontempt proceedingCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Civil Service Lawpublic employmentworkers' compensation boardjudicial review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2002

Sands Bros. & Co. v. Generex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Supreme Court initially denied the claimant's motion to confirm an arbitration award and granted respondents' motion to vacate it, remanding arbitrator disqualification to the NYSE. The appellate court modified this decision. It found the arbitration panel failed to follow prior directives and that its award of stock warrants was irrational, necessitating vacatur. The appellate court remanded the issue of damages, specifically limiting them to reliance damages, to a new arbitration panel due to prior procedural errors and concerns about arbitrator conflicts of interest, while otherwise affirming the initial ruling.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardRemand for DamagesArbitrator DisqualificationConflict of InterestIrrational AwardStock WarrantsReliance DamagesLost ProfitsAppellate Modification
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. ADJ6816541
Regular
Apr 26, 2010

XAVIER GRAVES vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award. The defendant sought apportionment of the applicant's permanent disability based on a prior award, arguing it represented overlapping conditions. However, the defendant failed to provide medical evidence in the current AMA Guides format for the prior disability. Consequently, the Board affirmed the amended award of 30% permanent disability, disallowing apportionment to the prior award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardXavier GravesCounty of San Diego Sheriff's Departmentpermanent disabilityapportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleKopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Mercier v WCAB
References
2
Case No. OAK 0307233
Regular
Oct 16, 2007

LESLEY MORRIS vs. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, arguing that the five percent permanent disability apportionment was incorrectly applied to the wrong knee and that no prior award existed for her right knee. The Board denied the petition, finding that a prior award for both knees existed, establishing a conclusive presumption of permanent disability. Because the current disability entirely subsumed the prior disability, the Board upheld the apportionment of the five percent permanent disability from the prior award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanente Medical GroupAthens AdministratorsOAK 0307233Petition for ReconsiderationCorrected Supplemental FindingsAward and Orderpermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4664
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 12,429 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