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

Dallesandro v. Dallesandro

This opinion addresses a motion by Nationwide Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for the respondent's employer, to vacate a wage deduction order issued on June 26, 1981. The original order directed Nationwide to withhold $95 per week from the respondent's workers' compensation benefits for the support of his former wife and two children, due to the respondent's failure to pay. Nationwide contended that it was not explicitly authorized by Personal Property Law § 49-b and that workers' compensation benefits were statutorily exempt from support claims. The court rejected both arguments, holding that carriers acting as employer agents are bound by the law and that workers' compensation exemptions do not apply to support claims, citing legislative intent evidenced by the repeal of a former exemption. Consequently, the motion to vacate was denied, and the carrier was directed to comply with the original order.

Wage Deduction OrderWorkers' Compensation BenefitsChild SupportAlimonyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Property LawWorkers' Compensation LawCarrier LiabilitySupport EnforcementLegislative Intent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koljenovic v. Marx

Plaintiffs Halit and Safet Koljenovic sued defendants David Marx and his corporate entities for unpaid overtime wages under FLSA and New York Labor Law, and Halit also claimed unauthorized wage deductions. Defendants sought partial summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs were exempt from overtime as live-in janitors and that no direct wage deductions occurred. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the overtime claim for work in their resident buildings, but denied it for work performed in other buildings. The motion for summary judgment on Halit's unauthorized wage deduction claim was denied, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding compelled side payments. The case will proceed on the remaining claims.

Wage and HourOvertime PayWage DeductionFLSANew York Labor LawBuilding SuperintendentsJanitorial ExemptionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawQueens
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angello v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Labor Ready, Inc. and its subsidiary Labor Ready Northeast, Inc., temporary employment firms in western New York, paid their 18,000 workers daily. Employees could choose payment by check or a cash voucher, redeemable at a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine (CDM) for a fee. The State Department of Labor investigated complaints in 1999 regarding unlawful wage deductions, including these CDM fees. The Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) initially found no violation of Labor Law § 193 (1), deeming the CDM charge a voluntary, separate transaction. However, the Department of Labor commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the fee deduction and wage payment were inseparably connected and violated Labor Law § 193. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the fee deduction, even if optional, constituted an unlawful deduction from wages under Labor Law § 193 (1) (b) and (2), and contravened the legislative intent to protect employees from coercive economic arrangements.

Wage deductionsLabor LawTemporary employmentCash vouchersEmployer feesStatutory interpretationVoluntary deductionsLegislative intentEmployee protectionCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. Verizon Information Services Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives for Verizon, brought a consolidated class action alleging unlawful wage deductions under New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania state laws, and failure to make overtime payments under federal and state law. Verizon moved to dismiss the wage deduction claims, asserting preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (§ 301 LMRA) or failure to state a claim under state law. The court granted Verizon's motion in its entirety. It ruled that most post-July 2003 claims were preempted by § 301 LMRA, New York interim claims were preempted under the Machinists doctrine, and pre-July 2003 New York and Pennsylvania claims failed as a matter of state law because advanced incentive compensation did not constitute 'earned wages' before reconciliation, and thus was not subject to unlawful deduction statutes.

Class ActionWage DeductionLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemptionLMRAMachinists DoctrineIncentive CompensationEmployment LawMotion to Dismiss
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Bradshaw

This case focuses on determining the average weekly wage for plaintiff Gene Bradshaw to calculate workmen's compensation benefits. Bradshaw, an independent contractor for Champion International Corporation, was required to pay for workmen's compensation coverage through defendant American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, with premiums deducted from his pulpwood earnings. The core dispute arose from American Mutual's attempt to reduce Bradshaw's gross earnings by various expenses (labor, equipment, etc.) to calculate his average weekly wage, a method Bradshaw contested. The trial court and subsequently the appellate court affirmed that Bradshaw was entitled to maximum benefits, emphasizing that the insurance premiums were based on gross earnings and the statute did not differentiate between gross and net earnings for wage computation, thereby rejecting the proposed deductions. The court found that where it's impracticable to compute average weekly wages, it should consider what a person in similar employment in the same district would earn.

Workmen's CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorGross EarningsNet EarningsInsurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionTimber IndustryPulpwood Harvesting
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
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

Hudacs v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Frito-Lay, Inc. did not violate Labor Law § 193 by requiring its route salespeople to reimburse the company for unremitted funds collected from customers. The court determined that these repayments were distinct from wage deductions, which are prohibited by the statute, and instead represented the full remittance of company funds temporarily entrusted to employees. The case originated from an order by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 193, which was subsequently revoked by the Industrial Board of Appeals. While the Supreme Court initially reinstated the Commissioner's order, the Appellate Division reversed, finding the Board's interpretation rational. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Labor Law § 193, specifically whether requiring employees to make up account deficits constituted an unauthorized deduction from wages or a separate transaction for the repayment of company funds. The Court emphasized that Frito-Lay allowed setoffs for deficits not attributable to the failure to fully remit funds, such as damaged products or theft, aligning with the statutory purpose of placing certain risks on the employer. Ultimately, the Court concluded that under the unique factual circumstances where employees convert company funds to their own accounts before remitting, the requirement to make up deficits did not contravene Labor Law § 193, as the funds were never wages.

Wage DeductionLabor Law § 193Employer Reimbursement PolicyRoute SalespeopleUnremitted FundsIndustrial Board of AppealsCollective BargainingNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Statutory InterpretationEmployee Accountability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,938 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