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. M1999-00676-SC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2001

Dorothy Wilkins v. The Kellog Company

Dorothy Wilkins, an employee of The Kellogg Company, sustained a right shoulder injury and was placed on light duty, which reduced her work hours but not her hourly wage. The trial court awarded her temporary partial disability benefits based on her 'average weekly wage.' Kellogg appealed, arguing that the relevant statute for temporary partial disability should calculate benefits based on the difference between the hourly wage at the time of injury and the hourly wage earned while partially disabled. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory language for temporary partial disability benefits does not incorporate the 'average weekly wage' concept. Consequently, Wilkins was found not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits because her hourly wage remained unchanged.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAverage Weekly WageLight Duty ProgramTennessee Supreme CourtAppealHourly WageBenefit Calculation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
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
Jan 26, 2005

County of Suffolk v. Coram Equities, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to compel the defendant to pay prevailing hourly wage rates for a building construction project. The case stemmed from a lease agreement where the defendant, as owner, agreed to construct a building and lease space to the plaintiff, including a clause for prevailing wages "in accordance with New York Labor Law Section 220." Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that Labor Law § 220 did not apply to the project. The courts reasoned that the construction did not qualify as a "public works project," a necessary condition for the application of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages was not a breach of the contractual agreement.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works DoctrineLease Contract DisputeLabor Law 220Contractual ObligationAppellate AffirmationConstruction WagesSuffolk County CourtsNew York State LawSpecific Performance Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 41 v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Plaintiffs challenged the defendants' wage rate determinations for work on Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) projects, arguing that HUD's regulation 24 C.F.R. § 968.3 improperly classified 'development' work as 'operation' work, leading to lower wages. They also alleged violations of New York State Public Housing and Labor Laws. The court dismissed the federal claims (Counts One through Four) for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the Wage and Hour Administrator, emphasizing the need for agency expertise. The remaining state law claim (Count Five) was dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint against all defendants.

Wage Rate DisputesComprehensive Improvement Assistance ProgramHousing Act of 1937Davis-Bacon ActAdministrative Exhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationHUD RegulationsFederal Court JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPublic Housing Projects
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2015

Mendez v. U.S. Nonwovens Corp.

This case involves allegations by employees against U.S. Nonwovens Corp. and its principals for failing to pay timely wages, overtime, and spread of hours wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for various causes of action, including unpaid overtime, untimely wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, and breach of oral agreement. The Court denied class certification for claims related to unpaid overtime and untimely wages, finding a lack of commonality and predominance due to individualized proof requirements. However, the Court granted class certification for the claim regarding the failure to pay a spread of hours premium, determining that a common policy of not paying this premium predominated over individual issues. Consequently, a class was certified for non-exempt workers who were not paid the spread of hours premium, and class representatives and counsel were appointed.

Class ActionWage and HourOvertime PaySpread of HoursTimely WagesFLSANYLLRule 23 CertificationEmployment LawClass Certification Denied in part
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Sanchez v. New York Kimchi Catering, Corp.

Plaintiff Walter Neira Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit against his former employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), alleging various wage and hour violations including unpaid overtime, failure to pay spread of hours premium, and lack of proper wage notices and statements. He sought class certification for the NYLL claims. The court, presided over by Judge Loma G. Schofield, partially granted and partially denied the motion. Class certification was denied for the overtime and spread of hours claims due to insufficient evidence of commonality and numerosity. However, the court certified a class for claims related to wage and hour notices and wage statements for non-exempt employees who worked for Gum Gang Inc. after March 1, 2014, finding these claims met Rule 23 requirements. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC was appointed as class counsel.

Wage and HourClass ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditWage StatementsWage NoticesRule 23
References
31
Case No. ADJ13385386
Regular
Nov 17, 2020

ABRAHAM BERNAL vs. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the original decision regarding applicant Abraham Bernal's average weekly wage. The WCAB found the prior calculation of $\$1,383.39$ per week was erroneous as it diluted the applicant's earning capacity by using a lower hourly wage than his rate at the time of injury. The Board recalculated the average weekly wage based on actual hours worked, including overtime and holiday pay, at the applicant's established $\$27.00$ per hour rate. This resulted in an amended average weekly wage of $\$1,414.26$, increasing the temporary disability indemnity rate to $\$942.84$ per week.

ADJ13385386NIAGARA BOTTLING LLCSAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANYVan Nuys District OfficePETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAVERAGE WEEKLY WAGESTEMPORARY DISABILITY INDEMNITYLABOR CODE § 4453(c)EARNING CAPACITYREGULAR WAGE
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Ballard v. Community Home Care Referral Service, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning unpaid overtime wages and class action certification. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff, a home health care aide, was not entitled to 1.5 times her regular hourly wage for overtime. This decision was based on the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) companion services exemption, which defines overtime compensation for such roles. Furthermore, the presence of a liquidated damages claim precluded class action relief under CPLR 901 (b).

Overtime WagesHome Health Care AideFLSA ExemptionClass ActionAffirmative DefensesNew York Labor LawWage OrderUnpaid WagesCPLR 90129 USC 207
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agency Construction Corp. v. Hudacs

This case concerns a general contractor (Petitioner) who challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor regarding prevailing wage violations. The Petitioner, having subcontracted a public works project to Rock Hill Construction, was held liable when Rock Hill failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees. An administrative hearing found Rock Hill guilty of underpayments and submitting false payroll records. The Commissioner adopted recommendations for repayment, interest, and penalties. The Petitioner sought review, questioning employee classifications, hours worked, and the assessed amounts. The court confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it was supported by substantial evidence, and dismissed the petition.

prevailing wagespublic workssubcontractor liabilitywage underpaymentfalse payroll recordscivil penaltyinterest assessmentjob classificationemployee testimonysubstantial evidence
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,340 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