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
Jul 27, 2001

Claim of Losurdo v. Asbestos Free, Inc.

The case involves a claimant appealing a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board ruled that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose prior left and right knee injuries to physicians and under oath, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found no fraud, the Board reversed this determination on administrative appeal, concluding the claimant knowingly made false statements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the Board's authority as the sole arbiter of witness credibility. The court rejected the claimant's explanations of forgetting the prior incidents as not credible.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of Medical HistoryFalse Statements Under OathWage Replacement Benefits DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Law Section 114-aAppellate Review of Board DecisionWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidencePrior Knee InjuriesAdministrative Appeal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacob v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in January 2000 and later sought workers’ compensation benefits alleging recurrence. An issue arose regarding the veracity of the medical history provided to the employer’s independent medical examiners, specifically concerning undisclosed prior similar injuries. A workers’ compensation law judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found that the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, leading to disqualification from wage replacement benefits. However, the Board authorized medical treatment for the January 2000 injuries. On cross appeals, the Board’s determination was affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the violation and the appropriateness of the penalties imposed.

Workers' Compensation Law Section 114-aMedical MisrepresentationWage Replacement Benefits DisqualificationMedical Treatment AuthorizationPrior Injuries DisclosureSubstantial Evidence ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Covert v. Niagara County

Claimant, a public assistance recipient, suffered a work-related injury while assigned to Niagara County through a work experience program. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and determined an average weekly wage based on public assistance benefits. After public assistance benefits were suspended, the claimant sought lost wage benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision, ruling that payments made under the work experience program constituted "wages" under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Niagara County and its third-party administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, thus precluding immediate appeal. The court noted that review could be sought if and when a final determination on wage replacement benefits is issued.

Wage DeterminationPublic Assistance BenefitsWork Experience ProgramInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionMedical Evidence SufficiencySchedule Loss of UseLost Wage ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewFinality of Decision
References
9
Case No. CV-22-2386
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Tirado v. Symphony Space, Inc.

Claimant Alejandro Tirado, a maintenance worker, filed two claims for work-related injuries in 2013 and received wage replacement benefits. The employer's carrier alleged claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by knowingly misrepresenting his physical capabilities to physicians during independent medical examinations (IMEs), supported by surveillance videos. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation, imposing a mandatory penalty of forfeiture of past wage replacement benefits and a discretionary lifetime bar from future wage replacement benefits due to egregious misrepresentations. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's findings and decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including medical testimony and surveillance videos, supported the finding that claimant feigned or exaggerated his disability for years to influence his workers' compensation claim and that the penalty was not disproportionate to the offense.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aMisrepresentationExaggerated DisabilitySurveillance VideoWage Replacement BenefitsMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyLifetime BarIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Appellate Division Affirmance
References
9
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
Feb 17, 2005

Claim of Baldwin v. Ben Funk, Inc.

Claimant, a mechanic, filed a workers' compensation claim for a lower back injury, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) accepted. After being classified with a permanent partial disability, claimant started his own lawn and garden equipment repair business. SIF contended that claimant was no longer entitled to wage replacement benefits because his new business's average weekly wage was higher than previously awarded. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined claimant was entitled to reduced wage replacement benefits, computing actual earnings by subtracting necessary/mandatory business expenses but disallowing optional/elective ones. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding its factual determination on expense classification proper, and thus affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawReduced EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityBusiness ExpensesWage Replacement BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFactual DeterminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionSelf-Employment Income Calculation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Hartnett

Petitioners, Magnolia Bay Associates (substituted for Laco Roofing, Inc.) and Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the respondent, the Department of Labor. The respondent found that Laco Roofing, engaged by Firestone to replace a defective roof on a State Armory, failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees as required by Labor Law § 220. Petitioners contended that warranty work on public projects should not be subject to prevailing wage requirements, arguing that the State was not a direct party to the sales or warranty contract. The court disagreed, holding that the 10-year warranty was an essential term of the State’s general contract and that the roof replacement constituted a public works project, thereby mandating the payment of prevailing wages. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, upholding the application of Labor Law § 220, and dismissed the petition.

Workers' CompensationPublic WorksPrevailing WageLabor Law § 220Warranty ContractSubcontractor LiabilityState ArmoryAdministrative ReviewContract InterpretationGovernment Contracts
References
16
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

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
Showing 1-10 of 1,577 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