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

Claim of Salinas v. Diner

A claimant, a waitress, suffered a fractured hip and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Her case was established for a work-related injury, and a hearing was held to determine her average weekly wage, specifically regarding tip income. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage as $111.30 based on reported salary and tips. The claimant appealed, contending that unreported tip income of $266 should have been included, which would raise her average weekly wage to $199.97. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that Workers' Compensation Law § 14 and 12 NYCRR 357.1 [c] mandate that tip valuation be based on amounts reported to the employer, absent a specific agreement.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTip IncomeUnreported IncomeWage CalculationWaitressFractured HipBoard Decision AppealStatutory InterpretationNYCRR
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Smith argues that Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from demanding or accepting parts of employee gratuities, is inapplicable to disputes over how a common tip pool is shared among employees. The dissent contends that the statute's purpose is to prevent employers from retaining tips meant for employees, not to regulate the internal distribution of pooled tips. Drawing a distinction from federal law and referencing a similar California case, Jou Chau v Starbucks Corp., the judge concludes that extending the statute to tip pooling among employees unnecessarily complicates the law and creates avenues for excessive regulation and litigation, despite agreeing with the majority's outcome in favor of Starbucks.

tip poolingLabor Law § 196-dgratuitieswage disputesemployer responsibilityemployee rightsstatutory interpretationdissenting opinionNew York lawCalifornia Labor Code
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. Dkt. # 6, Dkt. # 7
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Crayton v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals the denial of supplemental security income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2009, alleging inability to work due to various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The District Court reviews the Commissioner's decision, finding that while the ALJ's assessment of exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ failed to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) in analyzing non-exertional limitations. Consequently, the court remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for proper application of the PRT.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgePsychiatric Review TechniqueRFCExertional LimitationsNon-exertional LimitationsDepressionAnxiety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. ADJ3014811 (SFO 0511804)
Regular
Jul 09, 2010

ROBERT SULLIVAN vs. TASTE CATERING, FIRST COMP OMAHA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, rescinding the temporary disability rate calculated based on the applicant's estimated tip income. The Board found the applicant's uncorroborated testimony regarding tips lacked credibility, particularly due to contradictory tax return information. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, urging the parties to agree on earnings or present substantial evidence. This decision emphasizes that earnings calculations must be supported by substantial evidence, not just applicant testimony.

Average Weekly EarningsTips IncomeEDD Wage StatementIndustrial InjuryTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationarySubstantial EvidenceCredible TestimonyTax ReturnUnderreported Tip Income
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yu Ping Jin v. Chen Dun Kai

A food delivery driver for the employer sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working. His widow, the claimant, filed for death benefits. The employer initially reported varying weekly wages but eventually stated $780, including tips, on a C-11 form. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the average weekly wage to be $780, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the inclusion of tip income and the wage calculation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the employer's own documentation and lack of proper payroll records supported the $780 average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageDeath BenefitsTip IncomePayroll RecordsEmployer LiabilityCarrier AppealWage CalculationFatal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Gorodetsky

Defendants Shalom Rabkin and Mendy Gorodetsky, business partners and owners of Asbestways Services Corporation, pled guilty to income tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201). From 2006 to 2008, they underreported income and skimmed funds for personal expenses, owing $188,757 (Gorodetsky) and $148,999 (Rabkin) to the IRS. Judge Jack B. Weinstein sentenced each defendant to four months imprisonment, followed by six months home confinement and three years of supervised release, taking into account the welfare of their fifty employees and their families. Restitution was ordered for both, but no fines were levied. Sentences were staggered to allow for business continuity.

Income Tax EvasionCriminal SentencingFederal GuidelinesStaggered SentencesBusiness ContinuityEmployee WelfareRestitutionHome ConfinementSupervised ReleaseCorporate Crime
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIR Management Corp. v. United States

Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant operators (collectively, 'Taxpayers'), challenged the United States government's assessment of employer-only Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes on their employees' unreported tip income for the years 1989, 1990, 1992, and 1993. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) used two aggregate methods to calculate the unreported tips, which the plaintiffs stipulated as reasonable in amount. The core legal questions before the court were whether the IRS possessed the authority to make aggregate FICA tax assessments without individually auditing employees and crediting their Social Security accounts, and whether certain assessments were time-barred. The court, deferring to the IRS's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes, ruled that aggregate assessments are permissible and that the statute of limitations begins with the IRS's notice and demand to the employer. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motions were denied.

FICA Tax AssessmentEmployer Tax LiabilityUnreported Employee TipsIRS Aggregate Assessment AuthoritySummary Judgment MotionTax Refund LitigationStatutory AmbiguityChevron DeferenceSocial Security BenefitsDue Process Challenge
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 515 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