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

Jan 11, 2005

Claim of Blackwelder v. Faith Heritage School

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that tuition remission should not be included in the calculation of the claimant’s average weekly wage, considering it not to be "wages" under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (9). The claimant appealed this decision. The court reviewed the record, noting that the claimant's hourly rate was unaffected by his children's tuition and that the employer viewed tuition remission as an additional benefit. The Internal Revenue Service had also ruled it non-taxable. Ultimately, the court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that the tuition remission was an additional benefit and not remuneration for services, thus affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTuition RemissionEmployee BenefitsWagesRemunerationCompensable InjuryAppellate ReviewNew YorkBoard Decision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local 39, C.I.O.

Following remission from the Court of Appeals for discretionary review, this court determined that the matter should be remitted to the same arbitrator. The order appealed from was modified accordingly, without costs.

remissionarbitrationdiscretionary revieworder modificationappellate court

References

Case No. ADJ10036839 (Master) ADJ10035604

Regular

Nov 29, 2017

ERIC VOLK vs. LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Board found a conflict between the Qualified Medical Examiner's opinion on partial remission of the applicant's psychiatric condition and the denial of future medical treatment, necessitating further development of that issue. Additionally, the Board noted procedural issues regarding the attorney's fee request and the findings on digestive system and chronic fatigue syndrome claims. The case will return to the trial level to address these matters.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEAdjustment Disorderpartial remissionfuture medical treatmentattorney's feestemporary disability indemnity

References

Case No. ADJ3388749 (VNO 0561016)

Regular

Nov 26, 2018

ROBERTA MOORE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address conflicting medical opinions from the Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) regarding the apportionment of applicant Roberta Moore's fibromyalgia disability. The AME's report initially apportioned 70% of the disability to the industrial injury, but later changed to 100% to the industrial component, citing remission of her non-industrial condition. The Board found this sudden change unexplained and is remanding the case for further clarification from the AME or a new medical examination. Additionally, the Board will allow parties to address permanent total disability findings in light of the *Fitzpatrick* decision.

Agreed Medical ExaminerFibromyalgiaCumulative TraumaApportionmentUndifferentiated Connective Tissue DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityVocational FeasibilityLabor MarketAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Medical-Legal Expense

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 28, 1977

Jewish Child Care Ass'n v. Faye K.

An authorized agency appealed two Family Court orders that dismissed petitions seeking to terminate the parental rights of Faye K. and Samuel K. The original dismissal by the Family Court was based on a review of records, including conflicting medical evaluations regarding the parents' mental health. While some reports indicated chronic psychosis, others suggested remission or potential suitability for child return. The appellate court reversed these orders, concluding that the initial determination lacked sufficient basis. It mandated a more thorough hearing, including testimony from Drs. Borbely and Robins, to properly ascertain the children's best interests. This decision underscored the principle that the State requires extraordinary circumstances to deprive parents of custody, with the children's best interests as the guiding factor.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFoster CareMental HealthPsychiatric EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of the ChildNeglect PetitionCustody Dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Jabril P.

The case concerns a proceeding under New York State Social Services Law § 392 to determine whether three children should remain in foster care. This court was directed by the Appellate Division, First Department, to provide findings after reversing previous orders to discharge the children to their parents. A new hearing in 1980 found the father unfit due to his demanding nature and inability to understand the children's needs. The mother, while in remission from prior issues, remained questionable in her ability to cope with the stress of the children's return, especially given the father's attitude and the return of an older son from prison. The court, balancing parental rights with the children's best interests, granted the agency's petition for continued foster care until March 1, 1981, imposing several conditions on the parents and the agency.

Foster CareParental RightsSocial Services LawChild WelfareFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate DivisionUnfitnessPsychiatric TreatmentVisitation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Woodcock v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

The case involves cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, where the plaintiff sought remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for remand based on two primary reasons. First, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly discounted the opinions of the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Mani, and treating clinical social worker, Clifford Frank, by claiming inconsistencies with treatment notes without sufficient clarification. The ALJ is instructed to clarify these inconsistencies and how reported remission affects the plaintiff's ability to work. Second, the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the plaintiff's credibility by not providing specific reasons for her findings, especially concerning mental ailments. The court mandates that if the ALJ still finds the plaintiff not credible on remand, she must articulate all supporting reasons. The case is thus remanded for further development of the record and evaluation.

Social Security DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationTreating Physician RuleRemandMental HealthDepressionMedical OpinionTreatment NotesDistrict Court

References

Showing 1-7 of 7 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Claim of Blackwelder v. Faith Heritage School

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTuition RemissionEmployee BenefitsWagesRemunerationCompensable InjuryAppellate ReviewNew YorkBoard Decision

ERIC VOLK vs. LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL

ROBERTA MOORE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Jewish Child Care Ass'n v. Faye K.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFoster CareMental HealthPsychiatric EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of the ChildNeglect PetitionCustody Dispute

In re Jabril P.

Foster CareParental RightsSocial Services LawChild WelfareFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate DivisionUnfitnessPsychiatric TreatmentVisitation

Woodcock v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Social Security DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationTreating Physician RuleRemandMental HealthDepressionMedical OpinionTreatment NotesDistrict Court