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

Romero v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reasoner v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

This appellate decision addresses whether the Workers' Compensation Board correctly calculated the claimant's average weekly wage. The employer and carrier argued that due to the claimant's limited employment as an MVRSAB member, the compensation rate should be based on actual earnings, not the 200 multiple outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board determined that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) nor (2) was applicable, thus applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). It also found no evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited participation in the labor market, based on testimony of availability and continued business operation. The court affirmed the Board's calculation.

average weekly wageworkers' compensation lawcompensation rateemployment limitationlabor marketstatutory interpretationappellate reviewMVRSAB member
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilkins v. Kellogg Co.

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This is an appeal concerning the calculation of worker's compensation benefits following an injury to the appellant's right leg on August 20, 1986. The jury found a total loss of use for a period, followed by a 75% permanent loss of use, with 50% attributable to a prior knee injury. The core legal question is whether the percentage of contribution from a prior injury should be applied to the average weekly wage rate before the basic compensation figure is calculated, or after. The court examines the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, specifically Article 8306, Sections 10-12, 29, and 12c. The appellant argued for a higher recovery by applying the prior injury contribution to the average weekly wage first. The court, however, affirmed the trial court's method, which calculates the basic wage figure first (66.66% of average weekly wage or statutory limit) and then applies the percentage of incapacity caused by the *current* injury, taking into account the prior injury's contribution.

Worker's CompensationBenefit CalculationSpecific InjuryPrior Injury ContributionAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTexas LawLeg InjuryIncapacity PercentageTrial Court Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sneyd v. Joy-Kar Taxi

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded death benefits to the widow of William Sneyd, who died in a work-related accident, by calculating his average weekly wage based on his combined earnings from concurrent similar employments with Joy-Kar Taxi and County School Service, Inc. Appellants challenged this method, arguing that only wages from the employer at the time of injury should be considered, as Sneyd's employment with County School Service, Inc. had ceased shortly before his death. The court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law to prioritize an employee’s total annual earning capacity when determining average weekly wage in cases of concurrent similar employments. It clarified that the phrase "at the time of the injury" in the statute serves as a temporal marker for examining past and potential future earnings rather than restricting wage calculation to a single employer. Consequently, the court upheld the use of total wages from both employments to ensure a fair assessment of the deceased's earning potential.

Death benefitsAverage weekly wageConcurrent employmentsWorkmen's Compensation LawStatutory interpretationEarning capacityAppellate reviewWage calculationSimilar employmentsWorkmen's Compensation Board decision
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07467 [176 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Molina v. Icon Parking LLC

This case concerns the calculation of an employee's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. Claimant Ramon Guerra Molina sustained injuries while working as a parking lot attendant for Icon Parking LLC. The Workers' Compensation Board initially established his average weekly wage using Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3), which resulted in a lower wage. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Board failed to explain why Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (2) could not be "reasonably and fairly applied" before resorting to § 14 (3). The court remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings, including the submission of payroll records for similar employees, to determine the appropriate method for calculating the average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageWage CalculationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRemittalPayroll RecordsParking Lot AttendantStatutory Interpretation
References
3
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

In Re Texas EZPawn Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

This General Order addresses Defendant Texas EZPawn, L.P.'s motion for partial summary judgment concerning the calculation of damages in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases. Plaintiffs, former assistant store managers, allege they were improperly classified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation. EZPawn argued for the application of the fluctuating workweek method (29 C.F.R. § 778.114) for damage calculation, citing *Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Company*. Plaintiffs countered that EZPawn waived this argument, the method is inapplicable, and fact issues remain. The Court denies EZPawn's motion, concluding that the fluctuating workweek method is inappropriate for misclassification cases as it is inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the FLSA, particularly the time and one-half compensation requirement for overtime, and creates adverse incentives for employers. The Court also declines to follow the Fifth Circuit precedent in *Blackmon*, deeming its reasoning flawed.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationEmployee MisclassificationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentDamages CalculationFederal Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeStatutory InterpretationCircuit Precedent
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1997

Till v. Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc.

The claimant, a private preschool teacher, suffered a compensable injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1), asserting she worked “substantially the whole of the year” despite her 41-week annual employment. The employer contended this was irrational, arguing that predictable seasonal layoffs should be factored into the annual earnings calculation, preventing her from receiving benefits equivalent to a full-time, full-year employee. The court agreed, holding that the formula in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) was inapplicable when seasonal layoffs are a known incident of employment. Therefore, the average weekly wage should be calculated under subdivisions (3) and (4) of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14. The Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageSeasonal EmploymentRemittiturStatutory InterpretationSection 14Appellate DivisionWage CalculationEmployment DurationBoard Decision Reversal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,142 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