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
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
May 07, 1987

Reska v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee of Bethlehem Steel, initiated an action to recover reduced pension benefits. His monthly pension was decreased after the defendants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, offset a Workers' Compensation Board award for a 20% partial hearing loss against his pension. The plaintiff argued this reduction violated the company's Plan provisions and ERISA's non-forfeiture clause. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the Plan's language allowed for such offsets for partial loss, explicitly excepting only total loss of a bodily member. Citing Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., the court concluded that ERISA permits such offsets, even for workers' compensation awards not solely for wage replacement, as it aligns with Congress's intent to provide cost-cutting avenues for employers. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Pension BenefitsERISAWorkers' Compensation OffsetNon-forfeiture ProvisionSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDisability PaymentsBethlehem Steel Pension PlanPartial Hearing LossEmployee Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Paez v. Lackman Culinary Services

Claimant, an immigrant, injured his lower back while working as a food service worker in 2010. His workers' compensation claim was established, leading to surgery in 2012 for a herniated disc. Despite surgery, he continued to experience pain and was unable to return to his job. A WCLJ determined he had a permanent partial disability and an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board failed to consider total industrial disability, an issue he had raised before the WCLJ. The appellate court found that the Board did err by not addressing the total industrial disability claim and remitted the matter for further proceedings, as total industrial disability can have a more favorable outcome than loss of wage-earning capacity.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityTotal Industrial DisabilityLumbar DiscectomyLaminectomyMedical ExaminationRemittalAppellate ReviewBack InjuryFood Service Worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,923 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