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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
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
Sep 15, 2011

Colortone Camera, Inc. v. New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board

Colortone Camera, Inc. challenged the reclassification of its employees from Workers' Compensation Classification Code 8017 to 8018, which resulted in significantly increased insurance rates. The company's appeal to the Superintendent of Insurance, affirming the New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board's determination, was reviewed in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the Superintendent's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence that Colortone's business was primarily wholesale. Additionally, Colortone sought a declaratory judgment that portions of the Workers Compensation & Employers Liability Insurance Manual were unconstitutional for vagueness. This aspect of the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance and further proceedings, as it was not properly before the appellate court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance RatesBusiness ReclassificationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ9519422
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

VALERIE O'DELL vs. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (legally uninsured), administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior award. The applicant's petition was granted in part, amending the findings to classify her occupational group as 112 and increasing her permanent disability rating from 8% to 13%. The Board affirmed the use of the QME physician's opinion for disability rating over the primary treating physician's, finding it to be substantial evidence. The increased rating is based on the applicant's significant keyboarding and writing duties, aligning with the higher demands of occupational group 112.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityOccupational GroupPrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment
References
3
Case No. ADJ8824230
Regular
Apr 03, 2017

Braulina Rodriguez vs. ANAHEIM HEALTH CARE CENTER, AIG administered by CORVEL

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award regarding permanent disability indemnity. The primary issue deferred for further development is whether a 15% rate increase under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) applies, contingent on employer size and failure to offer suitable work. The original findings of a 34% permanent disability and 159 weeks of indemnity remain, but the payment rate is now to be determined. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which highlighted the need for record development on employer employee count relevant to the rate increase.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award & OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeCervical spineLumbar spineLeft anklePsycheTemporary disabilityPermanent disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ8530656, ADJ8553993
Regular
May 03, 2019

Feliciano Hernandez vs. Fresh Express, Inc., Federal Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, amending the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Board disagreed with the initial finding of 67% permanent disability, determining that the psychiatric impairment rating should be increased based on the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. This adjustment, utilizing an analogical rating method and considering the applicant's GAF score of 50, increased the total permanent disability to 73% and will include a life pension. The Board upheld the rejection of the vocational expert's total disability finding due to improper consideration of the applicant's age.

Agreed Medical ExaminerAlmaraz/GuzmanGAF scorepermanent disability ratingvocational expertsubstantial medical evidencerebuttal of scheduled ratingindustrial injuryspecific injurycumulative trauma injury
References
3
Case No. ADJ7483972, ADJ7483952
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

ROY HAAS vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Roy Haas, who sustained injuries to his left elbow and bilateral shoulders. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to increase Haas's permanent disability ratings. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's recommendation to rate impairments based on the highest applicable factor, citing that Dr. Suchard's report did not adequately explain combining strength and range of motion impairments for the elbow, and that strength deficits should not be rated where objective anatomic findings like loss of motion are present and prioritized by the AMA Guides. Consequently, Haas's permanent disability for the left elbow was increased to 25%, and for his shoulders to 31%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsPermanent Disability RatingAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesRange of MotionLoss of StrengthOccupational CodeLabor Code Sections
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 1996

99 Realty Co. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp.

This case involves a dispute over porter wage escalation charges and rent recovery. The Civil Court's decision to include vacation and sick days as components of the wage rate was affirmed, as these benefits are explicitly referenced in the wage clauses. The court also agreed that the 23rd-floor lease did not change the base year but adjusted the rent calculation formula. The appeals court modified the judgment to include Social Security, Federal unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation payments within the wage rate, increasing the landlord’s recovery to $246,116.69. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the wage rate as an index for increased economic costs and ensures all contract provisions are given effect. Consequently, the tenant’s claim for recoupment of alleged overpayments was rendered moot.

Porter Wage EscalationRent RecoveryLease AgreementWage Rate DefinitionCollective Bargaining AgreementSocial SecurityUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationContract InterpretationCivil Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.J. Cassone Bakery, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff suing Consolidated Edison Company (Con Ed) for fraud and breach of contract related to its "Curtailable Electric Service - Summer Savings Program" (CES). Con Ed had offered a five-year program with specific electricity credit amounts, but later reduced these credits in 1993 following a settlement with the Public Service Commission (PSC) after seeking a rate increase. The plaintiff sought damages for the reduced credits and investments made based on the original program. Con Ed moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses including lack of jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations, and failure to state a cause of action, arguing that the agreement did not guarantee a fixed rate and was subject to PSC-approved tariffs. The court denied Con Ed's motion to dismiss, determining that the plaintiff presented a viable breach of contract claim regarding Con Ed's good-faith obligation and its involvement in the rate increase settlement, warranting further proceedings.

Breach of ContractFraudPublic Service CommissionUtility RatesCurtailable Electric ServiceTariff ChangesImpossibility of PerformanceGood Faith ObligationMotion to DismissContractual Agreements
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,262 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