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
Apr 06, 1998

Ballard v. Community Home Care Referral Service, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning unpaid overtime wages and class action certification. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff, a home health care aide, was not entitled to 1.5 times her regular hourly wage for overtime. This decision was based on the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) companion services exemption, which defines overtime compensation for such roles. Furthermore, the presence of a liquidated damages claim precluded class action relief under CPLR 901 (b).

Overtime WagesHome Health Care AideFLSA ExemptionClass ActionAffirmative DefensesNew York Labor LawWage OrderUnpaid WagesCPLR 90129 USC 207
References
2
Case No. No. 95
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers

This case addresses a dispute between the City of Yonkers and 39 of its permanently disabled, retired firefighters regarding the calculation of their General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) supplement. The core issue is whether certain compensation, specifically holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, constitutes “regular salary or wages” for the purpose of this supplement. The Court concluded that “regular salary or wages” includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties, thus requiring the inclusion of holiday pay and check-in pay. However, it excludes monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties, and therefore, night differential should not be included. The lower court's decision was modified to reflect this interpretation.

General Municipal Law 207-aDisabled Firefighters' BenefitsRegular Salary CalculationCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationHoliday Pay EntitlementCheck-in Pay DisputesNight Differential ExclusionMunicipal Financial BurdenStatutory Remedial PurposePublic Sector Employment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gianvecchio v. NYS Newark State School

This case involves an appeal by an employer and earner from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant, a volunteer worker, was entitled to compensation, computing her average weekly wage based on earnings from her regular, dissimilar employment. The appellate court found this application of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law incorrect for an occasional worker. The court held that earnings from dissimilar regular employment cannot be used to calculate the average weekly wage for volunteer employment. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for a proper determination of the claimant's average weekly wage and a new award.

Volunteer WorkerAverage Weekly Wage CalculationWorkmen's Compensation LawDissimilar EmploymentRemittalOccasional WorkerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalCompensation EligibilityStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involved a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by an employer association to challenge a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The IBA had confirmed a minimum wage order from the Commissioner of Labor, which increased the cash wage for food service workers. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner lacked authority to set a wage lower than legislatively mandated and was constrained in considering other factors. The court converted the proceeding to a direct appeal and affirmed the IBA's determination, concluding that Labor Law § 655 (5) prohibits setting a cash wage less than that specified in Labor Law § 652 (4). The court found the petitioner's arguments without merit.

Minimum WageFood Service WorkersLabor Law InterpretationStatutory AuthorityWage Board ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborCPLR Article 78 ConversionJudicial Review of Agency ActionEmployer Association Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Alund v. Malt River Brewing Co.

Claimant was injured on October 28, 1999, and her workers' compensation claim was established with a tentative average weekly wage of $170.49. This wage was later permanently established by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) on July 26, 2001, but the WCLJ then reversed the decision, making it "without prejudice." The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the WCLJ improperly rescinded the permanent wage determination and referred the matter back. Claimant appealed this Board decision. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued another decision on November 3, 2003, closing the claimant's case due to a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market prior to the initial case establishment. Given this subsequent decision, which effectively rescinded the September 2003 decision under appeal, and the claimant's failure to appeal the November 2003 decision, the issue of her average weekly wage was deemed moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageMootnessAppealBoard DecisionVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketRescissionJudicial ReviewProcedural Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,440 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