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. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. ADJ11298015
Regular
May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that she was precluded from a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit, despite receiving a second Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The applicant contended that her second voucher was 'subsequent' to her first RTWSP payment, fulfilling an exception in Rule 17302(b). The Appeals Board clarified that the exception refers to the date of injury being subsequent, not the voucher issuance date. As the record lacked a finding on the cumulative trauma date of injury, the Board rescinded the previous order and returned the case to the trial level for this determination.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB vouchercumulative trauma injuryspecific injurydate of injuryLabor Code section 139.48Rule 17302Rule 17309Administrative Procedures Act
References
7
Case No. ADJ11110973
Regular
May 23, 2025

Jorge Aragon vs. El Super, Safety National Casualty Corporation, Tristar Risk Management

The applicant, Jorge Aragon, sought reconsideration of a decision denying him a second payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP). The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found him ineligible based on Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second RTWSP payment if the subsequent injury occurs before receiving the previous supplement. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant's remedy to challenge the validity of Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board, as the rule is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The Board also clarified its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite RTWSP's contention.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48invalid regulationarbitrary and capriciousArticle XIV section 4Administrative Procedures Act
References
3
Case No. ADJ10256712, ADJ10971822
Regular
Feb 06, 2018

THEODORE YOST vs. LODESTONE PACIFIC INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RETURN TO WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

The defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, sought reconsideration of two Stipulations and Awards totaling 60% permanent disability, arguing the intent was to settle for 45% permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as premature. The WCAB found insufficient admissible evidence in the record to evaluate the defendant's claim of mutual mistake. They recommended the petition be treated as a request to set aside the awards, requiring a hearing for evidence to be presented.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations and AwardsWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Permanent Disability IndemnityCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryApportionmentOrder Suspending ActionSupplemental Job Displacement Benefit Voucher
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. ADJ1 0544723
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

CARLOS BARRAZA AYON vs. GILL RANCH COMPANY, INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Notice of Benefit Ineligibility regarding a Return to Work Supplement, which was denied due to untimely application. The applicant argued inadequate notice of their right to a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature, finding the Director's decision was not yet subject to review at the trial level. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine the applicant's entitlement to an SJDV, as their underlying case settlement did not address this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn to Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherNotice of Benefit IneligibilityPetition for ReconsiderationPrematureTrial LevelAdjudicate EntitlementCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5900(a)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hughes v. Coghlin Electric Contractor

Claimant, a union electrician, injured his neck and left shoulder in April 2014. After being cleared to return to work, he informed his employer on June 3, 2014, that he would not return, subsequently filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld the finding of a causally-related injury but determined that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market and failed to reattach. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant did not search for employment consistent with his medical restrictions following his departure from work, nor did he seek vocational services or job-training programs.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor Market AttachmentMedical RestrictionsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausally-Related InjuryDisabilityEmployment SearchVocational Services
References
6
Case No. ADJ13342468
Regular
May 23, 2025

AMELIA MINA vs. NMA INSPECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Applicant Amelia Mina sought reconsideration of an October 3, 2022 Findings and Order, which denied her a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b). She argued the rule was inconsistent with its authorizing statute, violated equal protection, and constituted invalid special legislation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the prior decision, finding the applicant's second injury occurred before receipt of the first RTWSP payment, making her ineligible under Rule 17302(b). The Board also determined that the jurisdiction to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act, not the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Release
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 11,828 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