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

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. ADJ4566523 (RIV 0077883)
Regular
Dec 20, 2010

James Fleming vs. ALCOA FASTENING SYSTEMS, AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the award of permanent disability, allowing the WCJ to apply Labor Code section 4658(d) after the defendant failed to offer work. While affirming the 15% permanent disability rating, the Board deferred the calculation of indemnity pending further proceedings on the section 4658(d) adjustment. The applicant had argued the WCJ erred by excluding earnings evidence and failing to apply the section 4658(d)(2) increase. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning for excluding the new evidence but agreed with the applicant regarding the work offer requirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentDiminished Future Earning CapacityOgilvieReconsiderationLabor Code section 4658(d)Regular Modified Alternative WorkFindings and AwardWCJ Report
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. ADJ8981638
Regular
Jan 19, 2019

ANTHONY INGRASSI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his left shoulder, lumbar spine, right hip, and left elbow. The defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award, arguing the $36\%$ permanent disability award should only be paid over 173 weeks and that the Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) increase was unwarranted. The Appeals Board amended the award to reflect 173 weeks for the permanent disability and affirmed the $4658(d)(2)$ increase, finding the defendant failed to comply with statutory notice requirements for return-to-work offers after the applicant's medical condition became permanent and stationary, despite the applicant's brief return to work. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the $4658(d)(2)$ increase should not apply as the defendant's failure to issue a second notice was form over substance given the applicant was already working full duty.

Labor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Permanent Disability AwardApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent Impairment RatingsNotice of Offer of Regular WorkDWC-AD 10118Substantial ComplianceReturn to Work Incentives
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. ADJ7852424, ADJ7938790
Regular
Mar 24, 2015

KEITH RAKONCZA vs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by the defendant regarding a workers' compensation award for Keith Rakoncza. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report which found that the defendant's arguments regarding apportionment and the applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) were unfounded. The judge found that the defendant's attempt to apportion disability retroactively was unjust and not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the judge determined that Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) applied because the defendant failed to make a timely offer of work within 60 days of the applicant's permanent and stationary date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith RakonczaCounty of StanislausYork Risk Services GroupInc.ADJ7852424ADJ7938790Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)heart injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6451323
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

STEPHEN GOODWIN vs. CORNELL COMPANIES, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

Applicant Stephen Goodwin petitioned for reconsideration of a prior award finding 78% permanent disability for an admitted industrial injury. The applicant argued for a 15% increase in permanent disability indemnity under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) due to the employer failing to offer work within 60 days of the permanent and stationary date. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further development of the record regarding the section 4658(d) issue and the employer's size, deferring the final determination of the 15% adjustment and related attorney fees. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability IndemnityLife PensionAttorney's FeesIndustrial InjuryCorrectional LieutenantPermanent and StationaryModified WorkAlternative Work
References
3
Case No. ADJ4442660
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

JAIME ANDRES vs. PRIORITY BUSINESS SERVICES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involves competing petitions for reconsideration regarding a workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. Key issues include the applicability of a 15% increase in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) and whether temporary disability benefits exceeded the statutory 104-week limit. The Board found insufficient evidence to address the 4658(d)(2) issue and noted potential deficiencies in the applicant's arguments regarding a sudden and extraordinary event and rebuttal of diminished future earning capacity.

WCABReconsiderationLabor Code 4658(d)(2)BontempoPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityDFECSudden and Extraordinary EventLabor Code 4656(c)(1)Modified Work
References
3
Case No. ADJ7469760
Regular
Mar 25, 2016

GILBERT MARENTEZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER

The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury and 84% permanent disability for hypertensive cardiovascular disease but modified the start date for the 15% permanent disability increase under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) to January 19, 2014. The Board also upheld the requirement for the employer to provide treatment for the applicant's non-industrial diabetes when necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. The Board also affirmed the WCJ's discretionary allowance of a credit to the defendant for overpaid temporary disability benefits. The case is returned for reissuance of the award with the correct section 4658(d) date and determination of SAWW and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardhypertensive cardiovascular diseasecoronary artery diseasearrhythmiapermanent disabilityLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)temporary disability creditAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)permanent and stationary dateQualified Injured Worker (QIW)
References
10
Case No. ADJ6807374, ADJ6807475
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

CIIRISTINE OSTRANDER vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case involves an employer's failure to provide an injured employee with timely notice of modified or alternative work following a determination of permanent and stationary status. While the employee eventually returned to her regular duties, the employer did not formally offer such positions within the 60-day window mandated by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). Consequently, the employer is not entitled to a 15% decrease in permanent disability payments. However, the Appeals Board found that awarding the employee a 15% increase would elevate form over substance, given the employee's early return to regular work. Therefore, the Board rescinded the original award of a 15% increase and modified the decision to state there is no 15% adjustment under Labor Code section 4658(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristine OstranderCounty of Los Angeles/Sheriff's Departmentindustrial injuryrespiratory systemasthmainternal diseasepermanent disabilitypermanent and stationary (P&S) dateLabor Code section 4658(d)
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,786 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