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

Place v. Ryder

Claimant, who received workers' compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, settled a third-party action. A dispute arose regarding whether the employer had waived its statutory offset rights against the claimant's net recovery from the third-party action, as there was no written agreement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding that the self-insured employer had reserved its offset rights. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's attorney's correspondence provided substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that offset rights were explicitly reserved.

Workers' CompensationOffset RightsThird-Party SettlementEmployer's LienStatutory WaiverAttorney CorrespondenceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardNew York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Graham v. Life Rollway Corp.

The claimant sustained a leg injury on the employer’s premises and filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The self-insured employer, who had paid disability benefits, controverted the claim. It was later determined that the claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation, and an award was made. A dispute arose regarding the employer's reimbursement for disability benefits paid, specifically whether it should be the full amount or less FICA taxes. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer was entitled to full reimbursement. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the Board's conclusion rational since the full award was effectively paid to the claimant through direct payment and FICA remittances satisfying the claimant's obligations.

Workers' CompensationFICA TaxesDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationDue Process ClaimOverpayment RefundAppellate DecisionSocial Security Taxes
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hills v. New York City Board of Education

The claimant suffered a work-related wrist injury and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, including a schedule loss of use payment. The self-insured employer mailed a check for $4,580.20, but the claimant asserted non-receipt and denied endorsing the cancelled check. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ordered the employer to re-issue payment and investigate. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that timely mailing constituted payment and absolved the employer of further obligation. The Appellate Division found the Board's reversal arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to provide a rationale for deviating from its own conflicting precedents regarding employer responsibility in cases of unreceived or improperly endorsed payments. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the determination that the employer was not required to issue another check, and remitted the matter for additional proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePayment DisputeCheck Non-receiptEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawArbitrary and CapriciousRemittal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1991

Krajas v. Chevy Pontiac Canada Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a self-insured employer's responsibility for a claim. The Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction, despite the case being previously closed. A letter from the claimant’s attorney, submitted after the closing date, was deemed a valid application for compensation, alerting the employer to ongoing proceedings. The Board concluded that this application prevented the employer from being relieved of responsibility under Workers’ Compensation Law §25-a. The application was also found to be filed within the stipulated time limits. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationContinuing JurisdictionReduced Earnings AwardApplication for CompensationSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory Time LimitsBoard DecisionAppealReopened CasesClaimant Rights
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The self-insured employer appealed a decision from the Workmen’s Compensation Board that affirmed a referee's award to the claimant. The claimant, who worked putting cork fillings in shoes, injured her left ankle while washing her hands at the end of the day, when she turned to respond to a co-worker. The central legal question was whether this incident constituted an accident within the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The Board determined that the claimant's disability resulted from accidental injuries sustained in the course of her employment. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and unanimously affirmed the decision and award.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjuryAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-insured EmployerBoard DecisionAffirmationShoe FactoryHand Washing
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2010

Claim of Gardner v. Triple R Transport, Inc.

The claimant, a truck driver, was injured in 1999 while working for the employer. The employer's workers' compensation carrier contested the existence of an employer-employee relationship and, subsequently, the calculation of the claimant's average weekly wage. The Workers' Compensation Board determined there was an employer-employee relationship and set the average weekly wage based on the claimant's gross income. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing the wage should be based on net income after employment-related tax deductions. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to review the claimant's tax deductions or explain its deviation from prior precedent regarding necessary expenses. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageGross IncomeNet IncomeTax DeductionsEmployer-Employee RelationshipRemittalFactual DeterminationPrecedentTruck Driver
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 1969

Claim of Korcz v. Worthington Corp.

The claimant, a crane operator, experienced a seizure at work and was subsequently diagnosed by some physicians with carbon monoxide poisoning due to conditions in the plant, despite the employer's contention otherwise. The self-insured employer appealed the Workmen’s Compensation Board's decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence regarding carbon monoxide exposure or a causal link to the claimant's illness. Despite conflicting medical testimonies and the absence of direct carbon monoxide tests at the time of the incident, the Board's factual findings, which relied on medical opinions excluding other probable causes, were upheld. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing its power in fact-finding within its jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationCarbon Monoxide PoisoningCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceFact-Finding PowerAppellate ReviewCrane OperatorOccupational IllnessIndustrial Accident
References
2
Case No. ADJ8139465
Regular
Apr 18, 2013

Robert Scharfe vs. VI-TEL, LUMBERMANS UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE

This case concerns applicant Robert Scharfe's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. Scharfe argued the administrative law judge erred in calculating his average weekly earnings, claiming the judge disregarded significant self-employment income. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's decision that Scharfe failed to provide substantial evidence of his self-employment earnings, as his tax returns showed a net loss. Additionally, the Board found no error in the admission of income declarations from Scharfe's child support cases, which contradicted his claimed earnings.

Robert ScharfeVi-TelLumbermans Underwriting AllianceADJ8139465Opinion and Order Denying Reconsiderationtemporary disability indemnityaverage weekly earningsself-employment incomechild support casesLos Angeles County Superior Court
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,303 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