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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The claimant, who suffered a work-related injury in 1999, applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2001. The Workers' Compensation Board initially set his average weekly wage at $126, which was based on his part-time employment where he worked one day a week and received $126 plus health insurance. The claimant appealed, arguing that his average weekly wage should be calculated under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3) and that health insurance payments should be included. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the initial finding. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his work availability. The court also held that health insurance payments are not part of the definition of wages under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (9).

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WagePart-time EmploymentVoluntary LimitationHealth InsuranceWage CalculationAppellate ReviewNew York LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Law § 14
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The court addresses whether severance pay for an executive constitutes 'wages' under New York Labor Law for purposes of awarding attorney's fees and liquidated damages. Following a nonjury trial, plaintiff James K. Williams was awarded $25,000 in severance pay from defendant WAQX. Williams then sought additional remedies under Labor Law § 198 (1-a), arguing his salary fell within the definition of wages. The court distinguished between 'wages' for manual labor and 'salary' for higher-level employment, referencing the historical 'Stryker' distinction and definitions within Labor Law §§ 190 and 191. Concluding that Williams, as an executive, received salary and not wages, the court determined he was not covered by Article 6 of the Labor Law. Consequently, Williams' motion for attorney's fees and liquidated damages was denied.

Severance PayWage ClaimSalary DefinitionLabor Law InterpretationExecutive CompensationAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesEmployment ContractManagerial RoleStatutory Construction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This workers' compensation case addresses whether an employer's contribution to an employee's health insurance premium should be included in the 'average weekly wage' calculation for disability benefits. The chancery court initially ruled in favor of the employee, Juanita Johnson Pollard, stating that the employer's contribution of $31.62 per week for health benefits constituted an economic gain and thus part of her average weekly wage. However, the defendant-employer, Knox County, appealed this decision. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act's definition of 'average weekly wages' has not been amended to include fringe benefits despite numerous legislative changes since 1919. The Court concluded that broadening the definition to include such benefits is a legislative function, not a judicial one, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageFringe BenefitsHealth Insurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationJudicial LegislationTennessee LawEmployer ContributionDisability BenefitsReversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involved a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by an employer association to challenge a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The IBA had confirmed a minimum wage order from the Commissioner of Labor, which increased the cash wage for food service workers. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner lacked authority to set a wage lower than legislatively mandated and was constrained in considering other factors. The court converted the proceeding to a direct appeal and affirmed the IBA's determination, concluding that Labor Law § 655 (5) prohibits setting a cash wage less than that specified in Labor Law § 652 (4). The court found the petitioner's arguments without merit.

Minimum WageFood Service WorkersLabor Law InterpretationStatutory AuthorityWage Board ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborCPLR Article 78 ConversionJudicial Review of Agency ActionEmployer Association Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Claimant was injured on October 28, 1999, and her workers' compensation claim was established with a tentative average weekly wage of $170.49. This wage was later permanently established by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) on July 26, 2001, but the WCLJ then reversed the decision, making it "without prejudice." The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the WCLJ improperly rescinded the permanent wage determination and referred the matter back. Claimant appealed this Board decision. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued another decision on November 3, 2003, closing the claimant's case due to a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market prior to the initial case establishment. Given this subsequent decision, which effectively rescinded the September 2003 decision under appeal, and the claimant's failure to appeal the November 2003 decision, the issue of her average weekly wage was deemed moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageMootnessAppealBoard DecisionVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketRescissionJudicial ReviewProcedural Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This workers' compensation case before the Tennessee Supreme Court addresses the calculation of temporary partial disability benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2). Employee Dorothy Wilkins sustained a shoulder injury while working for Kellogg Company and subsequently worked on light duty with reduced hours, but her hourly wage remained unchanged. The trial court awarded Wilkins temporary partial disability benefits based on her average weekly wage, leading to an award of $3,258.20. Kellogg appealed, arguing that the statute's specific language for temporary partial disability mandates a calculation based on the difference in hourly wages before and after the injury, not the average weekly wage. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory text for temporary partial disability benefits has a unique calculation method that does not incorporate the average weekly wage definition. Consequently, since Wilkins's hourly wage did not change, she was not entitled to any temporary partial disability benefits. The Court emphasized that a literal interpretation of the statute aligns with legislative intent and promotes beneficial light duty programs, which ultimately provided Wilkins with more compensation than statutory benefits would have.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAverage Weekly WageHourly RateLight Duty ProgramTennessee LawSupreme CourtEmployer Incentive
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,382 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