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

In re Claim of Chee

The claimant was laid off in March 1999 and began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In July 1999, the employer offered to rehire him to his previous position at the same hourly rate of $12.44. The claimant rejected this offer, leading the employer to contest his right to continued benefits. An administrative hearing and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that the claimant was entitled to continued benefits, citing Labor Law § 593 (2) (d). The Board found that the prevailing wage for similar positions in the locality was $14.88 per hour, exceeding the offered salary by more than 10%, which constituted good cause for rejecting the job offer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was rational and supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment benefitsjob refusalprevailing wagegood causeLabor Lawadministrative appealsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewreemploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ9126761
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

Jennifer James vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Jennifer James, a police officer injured on duty, who sought additional benefits under Labor Code Section 4850. The core dispute is whether Section 4850 benefits, providing a leave of absence without loss of salary for up to one year, should be paid for a calendar year or until the equivalent of a full year's salary has been received. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, ruling that the one-year limitation is based on the duration of payments, not the total salary amount. A dissenting opinion argued that the intent of Section 4850 is to ensure no loss of salary, thus allowing benefits to continue until the equivalent of a full year's salary is paid, especially for injured public safety officers.

Labor Code section 4850temporary partial disabilitymodified dutiespolice officerwage loss benefitssalary continuationaggregate disability paymentsEason v. City of RiversideKosowski v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.County of Alameda v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1995

Claim of Tomlin v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

The claimant, a site manager for 23 years, began experiencing chest pains in February 1984. His employer granted him a medical leave and requested documentation. The claimant's treating physician, Patrick McAndrew, diagnosed essential hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chest pain of undetermined origin. The employer then used a disability claim form as a claim for a self-administered salary continuation plan, paying benefits under it. After an examination by the employer's physician, John Walters, who found no organic heart disease, the employer terminated the claimant, considering his absence a voluntary termination due to lack of a "bona fide" disability. The claimant subsequently filed for statutory disability benefits and a claim for discriminatory discharge with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 241 for retaliation. The Board asserted jurisdiction, found discrimination, but reduced damages due to the claimant's failure to actively seek employment. The employer appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence, but the decision was affirmed.

References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. ADJ11235958
Regular
Jul 25, 2018

Scot Turknette vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Appeals Board granted removal of this workers' compensation case, rescinding the expedited hearing's cancellation. The applicant, a potential firefighter, sought an expedited hearing on entitlement to Labor Code section 4850 salary continuation benefits, which would provide full salary for up to one year, exceeding temporary and permanent disability payments. The Board found that denial of an expedited hearing for these benefits, which are paid in lieu of temporary disability, would cause significant prejudice and harm. The case is remanded for an expedited hearing on the applicant's section 4850 benefit claim.

Labor Code section 4850salary continuation benefitsfirefighter classificationexpedited hearingPetition for Removalsignificant prejudiceirreparable harmtemporary disability indemnityPresiding WCJMMI status
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kraft v. Felder

The plaintiff, a plumber disabled by rheumatoid arthritis in 1974, seeks pension benefits from a fund established by the Plumbing Industry Board. The defendants, the pension fund chairman, trustees, and union local officers, resist the claim, citing a requirement of fifteen years continuous employment which the plaintiff failed to meet due to a three-year break in service (1962-1965) when he worked for the City of New York. This continuous service requirement was amended in 1966, after the plaintiff's service break, and the court found its application to him arbitrary and unreasonable, especially given his involuntary disability. The decision highlights that denying benefits to employees prevented from meeting final eligibility requirements through no fault of their own, after substantial contributions, is arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Pension rightsSummary judgmentContinuous service requirementBreak in serviceEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Arbitrary and capricious standardDisability benefitsPlumbing Industry BoardUnion pension fundFederal jurisdiction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tawil v. Fallsburg Central School District

The claimant, a school principal, suffered work-related injuries but continued receiving salary. He resigned effective June 30, 2009, after being denied tenure, and later took a teaching job in Florida at a substantially reduced salary. He sought workers’ compensation benefits for lost earnings starting July 2009. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that his employment ceased for reasons unrelated to his disability, and he failed to prove his reduced earnings were causally related to his injuries, thus denying benefits post-June 30, 2009. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant resigned due to denied tenure, not disability, and that his reduced earnings were due to economic factors in the job market rather than his injury.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsReduced EarningsCausationResignationTenure DenialEmployment LossAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJob Search
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,710 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