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. ADJ6692520
Regular
Jul 20, 2010

CRYSTAL VOS vs. STEVEN CHANG, DDS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case affirms a WCJ's decision finding the applicant sustained a 12% permanent disability. The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ erred by limiting rebuttal evidence to "wage loss" rather than "loss of long-term earning capacity" and denying costs for a vocational expert. The Appeals Board, relying on precedent from *Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco*, held that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence to rebut the permanent disability rating. Therefore, the WCJ's denial of the vocational expert's costs was also affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and Awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityvocational expertwage lossloss of long-term earning capacitydiminished future earning capacity (DFEC)2005 Permanent Disability Rating ScheduleOgilvie v. City and County of San Francisco
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

Matter of Rosales v. Eugene J. Felice Landscaping

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its workers’ compensation carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a WCLJ ruling that the claimant, a landscaper injured in 2010, sustained a permanent partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity. The WCLJ had considered various vocational factors, including the claimant's age, limited English skills, and low education, to determine a 10% wage-earning capacity and a $300 weekly benefit rate. The employer argued that vocational factors should not be used to determine wage-earning capacity for computing the compensation rate in permanent partial disability cases. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing permanent from temporary disabilities and concluding that vocational factors are appropriately considered under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) when fixing wage-earning capacity in permanent partial disability cases without actual earnings, especially when the injury contributed to the loss.

permanent partial disabilitywage-earning capacityvocational factorsWorkers' Compensation Law § 15benefit durationcompensation ratephysical impairmentback surgerylimited English skillseducational background
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sarbo v. Tri-Valley Plumbing & Heating

Claimant, a sheet metal installer, suffered a compensable back injury in August 2010. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a 55% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Workers’ Compensation Board later modified this decision, increasing the loss of wage-earning capacity to 60% and reducing wage-earning capacity to 40%, by considering vocational factors in addition to medical impairment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this modification. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, ruling that the Board was authorized to consider vocational factors when determining wage-earning capacity under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a), and found substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination.

Permanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityVocational factorsWorkers' Compensation BoardIndependent medical examinerAppellate reviewAffirmationBack injuryWorkers' compensation ratesStatutory interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wooding v. Nestle USA, Inc.

The claimant, who suffered a compensable injury to his left arm in 2003 while performing manual labor, appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's finding that the claimant had a schedule loss of use to his arm but did not have a total industrial disability. The claimant contended he was totally industrially disabled due to his injury coupled with his limited educational background and work history. While a vocational evaluation suggested the claimant could perform sedentary work, a vocational counselor disagreed, citing his age, education, and employment history. However, the court deferred to the Board's credibility determination, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of a schedule loss of use rather than a total industrial disability, thus affirming the Board’s decision.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseVocational RehabilitationGainful EmploymentPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationSedentary Work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2015

Drake v. SRC, Inc.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 31, 2015, which ruled he sustained a permanent partial disability and a 15% loss of wage-earning capacity after a December 2010 work injury. The claimant argued for a 32% loss of wage-earning capacity, which would extend benefit duration, based on post-injury wages. The court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing between calculating loss of wage-earning capacity for benefit duration based on vocational factors and wage-earning capacity based on actual earnings. It found substantial evidence supported the 15% loss of wage-earning capacity, considering the claimant's functional abilities, impairment severity, age, education, and language proficiency.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVocational FactorsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBenefit DurationWork InjuryNeck InjuryBack Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2015

Matter of Maddox v. Baumann Sons Buses

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a permanent partial disability and a 40% loss of wage-earning capacity. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity and modified prior temporary partial disability awards, but the Board reduced the capacity loss to 40% and rescinded the WCLJ's award modifications. The court upheld the Board's finding of a 40% loss of wage-earning capacity, citing substantial evidence from medical opinions and vocational factors. However, the court reversed the Board's rescission of the WCLJ's modification of temporary awards, as the Board's reasoning was based on an inaccurate reading of the record, mistakenly believing the WCLJ based modifications on wage-earning capacity rather than medical impairment. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings concerning the temporary disability awards.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTemporary Partial Disability AwardsMedical ImpairmentVocational FactorsOrthopedic Surgeon ReportCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2013

Matter of Baczuk v. Good Samaritan Hospital

Claimant, a critical care nurse, developed reactive airway dysfunction syndrome and an allergy to hand sanitizer at her workplace, leading to her stopping work and applying for workers' compensation. Her case was established for a work-related injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a permanent marked partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity, awarding benefits at $600 per week. The Workers’ Compensation Board agreed on the 90% loss but capped benefits at 500 weeks. The employer appealed, arguing the calculation should consider vocational factors and an employment consultant's labor market survey indicating only a 25% loss. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that wage-earning capacity for partial disability is determined by actual earnings, and found substantial evidence supported the 90% loss, discrediting the employer's survey due to the claimant's severe coughing impediment.

Workers' CompensationWage-Earning CapacityPermanent Partial DisabilityAllergic ReactionReactive Airway Dysfunction SyndromeHand SanitizerActual EarningsLabor Market SurveyAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,675 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