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. 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. 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

Linger v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Claimant sustained permanent partial disabilities from two 1977 accidents and one 1980 accident, leading to separate awards from different employers and their respective insurance carriers. Initially, the claimant received concurrent benefits exceeding the statutory maximum rate. Upon discovering these concurrent payments, a joint hearing was held. An Administrative Law Judge apportioned the award, which was subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, stating that concurrent awards exceeding the statutory maximum for a permanent partial disability were impermissible. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for a per-accident application of the statutory maximum. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law establishes an overall maximum rate for permanent partial disability regardless of the number of accidents or employments.

Permanent Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory MaximumApportionmentMultiple AccidentsWage LossJudicial PrecedentAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carriers
References
2
Case No. 6070 7321 (referencing Employer: McLane Northeast)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2011

Angelo v. Chemical

This appeal concerns a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding death benefits for the widow of John Angelo, who died from asbestos-related pleural disease. The decedent's occupational disease claim for pleural asbestosis had a disablement date of May 27, 1994. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for causally-related death, set an average weekly wage of $838.46, and awarded maximum benefits of $500 per week, shifting liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund appealed, arguing the lower statutory maximum rate from the 1994 disablement date should apply, not the rate effective at the time of death. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (5) (1), which states the increased maximum death benefit rate applies to deaths occurring on or after July 1, 2007. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the statutory language unambiguous and rejecting the Special Fund's arguments.

Death BenefitsSurviving SpouseOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisPleural DiseaseDisablement DateMaximum Benefit RateStatutory InterpretationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ6830678
Regular
Mar 18, 2014

JAMI MALLIN vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an inmate firefighter who sustained injuries to her hip and back. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding 63% permanent disability, arguing the weekly payment rate was improperly set above the statutory minimum for inmate workers. The Board granted reconsideration, affirming the 63% disability finding but amending the award to reflect the statutory minimum weekly payment rate of $130.00. This adjustment correctly applies Labor Code section 3370(c)(5) to inmate firefighter compensation.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDSLEEP DISORDERSLEEP IMPAIRMENTINMATE FIREFIGHTERCALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION 3370(c)(5)MINIMUM AMOUNTPERMANENT DISABILITYWEEKLY PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kahn v. Department of Education

Petitioner Leslie Kahn, a school social worker, was terminated by the New York City Department of Education after receiving an unsatisfactory rating from Principal Danielle Salzberg. Kahn, who had previously received satisfactory ratings, contended her evaluation and subsequent termination were flawed due to procedural defects and statutory violations. She pursued an administrative appeal, which reaffirmed her termination, before commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding combined with claims under 42 USC § 1983. Respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding based on failure to file a notice of claim, statute of limitations, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court denied all motions to dismiss, ruling that a notice of claim was not required for the equitable relief sought, the proceeding was timely due to the ambiguity of the administrative decision's finality and alleged statutory violations, and Kahn's right to pursue her civil rights claim was affirmed.

Probationary EmploymentEmployee TerminationUnsatisfactory Performance RatingCPLR Article 78Statute of Limitations DefenseAdministrative ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue Process RightsCollective Bargaining Agreement ViolationEducation Law
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 3,678 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