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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centre Insurance Co. v. Pollitt

Carl Pollitt, an employee, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits from Centre Insurance Company. After reaching statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) on March 11, 1997, Pollitt underwent multiple spinal surgeries and sought an increased impairment rating, claiming a substantial change in his condition. The trial court granted his motion, increasing his impairment rating to twenty-six percent. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that a substantial change in condition must occur before the statutory MMI date for an impairment rating to be reevaluated. Therefore, the trial court lacked authority to find a substantial change of condition or increase Pollitt's impairment rating, as his alleged change occurred after the statutory MMI date.

Workers' Compensation DisputeImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory MMISubstantial Change of ConditionAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial Review ScopeSpinal SurgeryTexas Workers' Compensation ActIncome Benefits
References
4
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lyublinsky v. Barnhart

A 73-year-old disabled plaintiff, who has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits since 1993, brought this action to review the Commissioner's final determination concerning his benefit rate calculation. The plaintiff argued that his benefit rate was improperly calculated, citing discrepancies in earnings records and claims of discrimination. The case has a lengthy procedural history, including multiple remands from the District Court due to issues like denial of a fair hearing and lack of legal representation. The Court conducted a de novo review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) benefit calculations, utilizing the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) method, and found no mathematical errors. Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to present compelling evidence to disprove the SSA's records, which are considered conclusive after a statutory period. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision was affirmed.

Social Security DisabilityBenefit CalculationAIME MethodAdministrative Law JudgePro Se PlaintiffFederal Court ReviewEarnings RecordsBurden of ProofRemandJudgment on the Pleadings
References
3
Case No. 11-06-00214-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

Centre Insurance Company, Successor to Business Insurance Company v. Carl Pollitt

This workers' compensation dispute involves Carl Pollitt, who received benefits from Centre Insurance Company after an on-the-job injury. Despite reaching statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 1997, Pollitt underwent multiple spinal surgeries and sought an increased impairment rating, claiming a substantial change in his condition. The trial court granted his motion, raising his impairment rating to twenty-six percent. On appeal, Centre Insurance Company argued that impairment ratings cannot be reevaluated after the statutory MMI date. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a substantial change in condition must occur before the statutory MMI date, thus rendering judgment that Pollitt take nothing.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory MMISpinal SurgeryJudicial ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas LawAppellate CourtSummary Judgment
References
4
Case No. ADJ2773730 (VNO 0546451) ADJ8941760
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

ALVIN BLADES vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award primarily concerning the weekly payment rate for permanent disability. Initially, the Board affirmed an award but later amended it to reflect a stipulation for a $230 weekly rate. The applicant's subsequent petitions, including one allegedly misplaced by the WCAB system, argued for higher statutory rates of $270 and $310.50 per week. The Board granted further reconsideration, finding the applicant's petitions timely and agreeing that an oversight occurred regarding the correct payment rates, thus amending the award to reflect the higher statutory amounts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlvin BladesCity of PasadenaADJ2773730ReconsiderationFindings of FactPermanent DisabilityLife PensionAttorney's FeesStipulated Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nalews, Inc. v. Ross

The case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Industrial Commissioner's redeterminations of prevailing wage rates for a public works contract. The petitioner, involved in constructing a water pollution control plant in Chautauqua County, argued that the commissioner improperly based prevailing rates on county-wide collective bargaining agreements rather than wages in the specific civil divisions where the work was performed. The court found that the commissioner's determination violated Labor Law § 220 by failing to adhere to the statutory priority for determining prevailing rates within specific localities and by not establishing a union majority in the smaller civil divisions when using union wage rates. Consequently, the court annulled the commissioner's determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with statutory requirements.

Public Works ContractPrevailing Wage RatesLabor Law § 220CPLR Article 78Civil DivisionLocality RuleCollective Bargaining AgreementsAnnulmentRemittal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reagan v. Tennessee Municipal League

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a permanent partial disability award to an employee in a worker’s compensation case. Appellants argued that the employee's injuries were confined to a scheduled member (right leg and foot) and therefore, the disability rating should be based on statutory schedules, not apportioned to the body as a whole. The court found that the employee sustained a severe fracture to the right leg and ankle, rated by an orthopedic surgeon as 50% permanent partial disability to the foot/ankle, or 35% to the leg, or 14% to the whole person per medical guidelines. However, the appellate court ruled that statutory schedules for scheduled member injuries must control over medical impairment ratings that translate to a body as a whole disability. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a redetermination of the disability rating based solely on the injury to the right leg as a scheduled member.

Permanent Partial DisabilityScheduled Member InjuryBody as a WholeStatutory SchedulesMedical Impairment RatingRemandLeg InjuryFoot InjuryAnkle InjuryTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. 03-98-00686-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2000

Carol Ann Milner v. City of Leander Axia Services, Inc. And Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental RiskPool

Carol Ann Milner, an employee of the City of Leander, suffered an on-the-job injury and sought workers' compensation. Her impairment rating was disputed, leading to a contested case hearing and review by an appeals panel. Milner then sued in district court, alleging breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and errors in administrative proceedings. The trial court granted partial summary judgments on the tort claim and on one statutory issue, then dismissed the entire cause for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirmed the summary judgments on the tort claim and the statutory issue regarding oral dispute of impairment rating, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining statutory issues.

Workers' Compensation AppealSovereign ImmunityBad Faith ClaimImpairment Rating DisputeJurisdictional DismissalSummary Judgment ReviewGovernmental Entity LiabilityInsurance Adjustor DutyTexas Administrative Code InterpretationWaiver of Immunity
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 5,406 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