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. ADJ4334434 (RIV 0047774) ADJ1332571 (VNO 0485919)
Regular
Sep 02, 2010

TARIK JUSUFBEGOVIC vs. FIESTA FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, STATE COMP. INS. FUND

This case concerns retroactive temporary disability payments for an admitted industrial injury. The applicant argued for higher retroactive payments based on an increased average weekly earnings determination and Labor Code section 4661.5, which mandates payment rates in effect at the time of payment if made more than two years after the injury. The Board reversed the WCJ, ruling that section 4661.5 applies even if some prior payments were made, as long as the payments are for temporary disability and occur more than two years post-injury. Therefore, the award was amended to reflect the higher indemnity rate in effect at the time of the Board's decision. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, favoring the WCJ's narrower application of the statute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsLabor Code Section 4661.5Hofmeister v. Workers' Comp. AppealsBd.Permanent DisabilityRetroactive Temporary DisabilityMaximum Rate
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mills v. Staffking

This dissenting opinion concerns the retroactive application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), specifically regarding the Special Disability Fund's reimbursement of employers or carriers for compensation and medical benefits after 260 weeks of disability. The dissent argues that the amendment, effective September 10, 1996, explicitly states its retroactive application for claims where the accident or disablement occurred on or after August 1, 1994. It criticizes the Workers’ Compensation Board for disregarding this statutory language and focusing solely on the amendment's later effective date. The dissenting judges conclude that the 260-week provision should apply to the claimant’s case, given the accident occurred after August 1, 1994, and advocate for reversing the Board's determination. The overall decision, however, was affirmed by the majority.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionAmendment Effectiveness260-week waiting periodClaimant RightsEmployer ReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centerpoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Commission

This opinion addresses an appeal brought by CenterPoint Energy Entex concerning the Texas Railroad Commission's authority to conduct retroactive prudence reviews of gas charges passed through a purchased gas adjustment (PGA) clause and to order refunds. Entex also challenged whether such a review constitutes a 'ratemaking proceeding,' which would entitle the City of Tyler to expense reimbursement. The court affirmed the Commission's authority to conduct retroactive prudence reviews and order refunds, concluding it does not violate the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking. However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding expense reimbursement, ruling that a prudence review is not a 'ratemaking proceeding' for the purpose of municipal expense recovery.

Utility RegulationGas UtilityPurchased Gas Adjustment ClausePGA ClauseRetroactive Prudence ReviewRatemaking ProceedingExpense ReimbursementTexas Railroad CommissionFiled Rate DoctrineRetroactive Ratemaking
References
69
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00154 [235 AD3d 96]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Garcia v. Monadnock Constr., Inc.

This appeal addresses the retroactive application of the Justice for Injured Workers Act (JIWA), specifically Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11(2) and 118-a. Plaintiff Waldy Quinones Garcia, injured in a construction accident, had his workers' compensation claims dismissed based on collateral estoppel from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing JIWA, which bars collateral estoppel effect for Board findings, did not apply retroactively. The Appellate Division, applying four factors (remedial nature, legislative urgency, correction of unintended judicial interpretation, reaffirmation of legislative judgment), concluded that JIWA indeed applies retroactively. Consequently, the Court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer and for partial summary judgment.

RetroactivityJustice for Injured Workers ActJIWACollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardSummary JudgmentLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06561 [175 AD3d 1663]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2019

Matter of Pryer v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead

Claimant Wiley Pryer sustained a back injury in 2012 and was classified with a permanent partial disability, but was denied continued benefits due to a lack of attachment to the labor market, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board in 2015. Claimant sought to apply a 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) retroactively, which aimed to remove the labor market attachment requirement for certain permanent partial disability claimants. While a WCLJ initially applied the amendment retroactively, the Board reversed, concluding the amendment did not apply as a final Board decision on labor market attachment existed prior to the amendment's effective date. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, aligning with prior precedent that the amendment does not retroactively apply to all claimants, especially those with pre-amendment final Board decisions regarding labor market attachment.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentWorkers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w)Retroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWage Replacement BenefitsInvoluntary WithdrawalClaimant Benefits
References
5
Case No. ADJ3861984
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

GUADALUPE SANTA CRUZ vs. PEP BOYS, GALLAGHER BASSETT ROSEVILLE

This case involves a lien claim by a chiropractor for over $67,000 for treatment provided to an injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior finding that only $66.94 was owed, disallowing the balance of the lien. The WCAB ruled that a statutory amendment effective in 2008 did not apply retroactively to services rendered prior to its effective date. Additionally, the lien claimant failed to prove licensure for physical and occupational therapy, and the stipulated medical treatment and AME opinions did not cover the disputed past services.

Labor Code section 4604.5(d)(3)retrospective applicationmedical treatment utilizationchiropractic visitsphysical therapy visitsoccupational therapy visitslumbar surgerystipulated awardAME reportsACOEM Guidelines
References
2
Case No. SAC 0316687
Regular
May 20, 2008

STEVE OLSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Labor Code section 4663(e), effective January 1, 2007, applies retroactively to a 2002 injury regarding apportionment of permanent disability for heart trouble. The Board rescinded its prior decision and the trial judge's decision, returning the case to the trial level to await a Court of Appeal ruling on this identical issue in the *Alexander* case. The outcome will depend on whether the court finds section 4663(e) retroactively applicable to pre-2007 injuries.

Labor Code section 4663section 4663(e)heart trouble presumptionapportionmentcumulative industrial injurycorrectional lieutenantpermanent disabilityreconsiderationrescindedretroactive application
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franz v. Dregalla

The plaintiff, injured in a fall through an unprotected roof hole during construction, was granted partial summary judgment based on Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes absolute liability on the owner. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, rejecting the defendant-appellants' argument that a subsequent amendment, exempting owners of one- and two-family dwellings, should be applied retroactively. The court held that the amendment, effective June 30, 1980, lacked clear language for retroactive application and could not impede the plaintiff's vested rights that existed at the time of the July 18, 1979 injury.

Labor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationVested RightsConstruction SafetyOwner LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ3894154
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

CHARLES FOLLETT vs. CITY OF GLENDALE, Permissibly Self-Insured and Self-Administered

This case concerns an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits who was denied Labor Code section 4850 benefits after the effective date of his industrial disability retirement. The Board previously granted reconsideration and amended an award to reflect that section 4853 bars an employee's right to section 4850 benefits upon retirement. The applicant argued these benefits vested and should continue until actual pension payments were received. The Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming that section 4853 prevents receipt of section 4850 benefits after the effective date of a disability retirement under PERS, especially when the retirement was made retroactive.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 4850Temporary DisabilityIndustrial Disability RetirementLabor Code Section 4853
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pioneer Transportation Corp. v. Kalajian

In 1979, the respondent awarded the petitioner two school transportation contracts, which included provisions for price adjustments based on the "national consumer price index." An amendment to Education Law § 305, effective August 8, 1983, redefined this index, and the petitioners sought to apply this new definition retroactively to their existing contracts. The court denied the petition, asserting that statutes are generally given prospective application unless explicitly stated otherwise. Retroactive application would violate the principle that contract obligations are determined by the law in force at the time of execution, potentially raising constitutional questions by impairing existing contract terms. The court dismissed the proceeding.

Contract LawRetroactivity of StatutesEducation LawConsumer Price IndexStatutory InterpretationSchool Transportation ContractsImpairment of ContractsCPLR Article 78Prospective ApplicationConstitutional Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,630 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