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

F. G. Compagni Construction Co. v. Ross

Petitioners appealed judgments that had annulled certain prevailing wage and supplement redeterminations and notices to withhold payment issued under Labor Law sections 220 and 220-b. They contended that the respondent failed to ascertain prevailing wages and supplements by investigating workers in the defined 'locality,' instead conducting county-wide surveys and using union wage rates without proving majority union membership. The court affirmed the vacatur of redeterminations, finding the respondent's methods deviated from statutory mandates and that 1978 amendments to Labor Law section 220 were not retroactive. However, the court modified the judgments by reversing the annulment of notices to withhold payment, ruling that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial review on that matter.

Prevailing WageWage RedeterminationsLabor Law ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewRetroactivity of LawPublic Works ContractsUnion Wage ScalesLocality DefinitionExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feinberg v. Board of Education

The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding, challenging the respondents' act of withholding 30 days of his compensation as a substitute teacher. The respondents justified this action as a recoupment of alleged overpayments for vacation pay. The court distinguished this case from those involving pension funds, where statutory provisions permit withholding for overpayments, which is not applicable to wages. Highlighting legislative and judicial public policy, the court cited Labor Law § 193 and CPLR 5231, which protect employees' wages and limit deductions to 10% of gross income. Ultimately, the court condemned the total withholding of earnings as a circumvention of public policy and denied the respondents' motion to dismiss, finding that the petition successfully stated a cause of action.

Article 78 ProceedingWage WithholdingOverpayment RecoupmentSubstitute TeacherLabor LawPublic PolicyGarnishmentIncome ExecutionWagesMotion to Dismiss
References
9
Case No. ADJ9913035
Regular
Sep 20, 2019

CLAUDIA KNIGHT vs. TRIDENT USA HEALTH SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to award applicant's attorney a 15% fee on a lump sum temporary disability (TD) payment. The WCAB found that the employer's carrier received notice of the attorney's request to withhold fees from the TD payment, despite a dispute over fax receipt. By failing to withhold the requested fees, the defendant became liable for an additional attorney's fee of $4,835.88. This decision overturns the prior administrative law judge's denial of the fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeesTemporary DisabilityLump Sum PaymentQualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Declaration of Readiness (DOR)Objection to DORFaxNotice of Lien
References
3
Case No. ADJ1586634 (LAO 0884541)
Regular
Jan 03, 2014

STEVE BALTIERRA vs. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT, UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTEED COMPANY

This case involved an employer who paid permanent disability benefits to an employee already represented by counsel, without withholding attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the attorney fee issue. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended it to explicitly order the employer to pay the attorney's fee of $1,071.23 in addition to the already paid indemnity. This was based on the principle that once an attorney's lien is established, payments without withholding fees can render the employer liable for those fees.

ReconsiderationAttorney feesPermanent disability indemnityNotice of RepresentationLienLucky Stores Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.WCAB Policy and Procedure ManualApplicant's recoveryFindings of FactDecision After Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1975

Nelson v. Dumpson

The court annulled the determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services, which had affirmed the New York City commissioner's decision to recoup an overpayment of public assistance from the petitioner. The overpayment was due to the inclusion of the petitioner's son, Frank, in the budget while he was outside the household. The initial determination was based on section 348.4 of the regulations of the State Department of Social Services (18 NYCRR 348.4), concerning 'suspected fraud' requiring evidence of willful withholding of information. However, the record from the fair hearing lacked substantial evidence to establish willful withholding or fraud. The petitioner testified to disclosing Frank's absence, and respondent's records did not contradict this. This annulment does not preclude the respondent from seeking relief for overpayment due to honest mistake.

public assistanceoverpaymentrecoupmentwillful withholdingfraudfair hearingsocial services regulationssubstantial evidenceannulmentremand
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nalews, Inc. v. New York State Environmental Facilities Corp.

The petitioner, Schultz Construction Inc., entered into a contract with the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) subject to Labor Law section 220, mandating prevailing wages. The Department of Labor's redeterminations led EFC to withhold funds from the petitioner. Despite the annulment of these redeterminations due to a lack of hearings, funds remained withheld. Petitioner sought a return of the moneys, which Special Term granted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that while the fiscal officer was not expeditious, the statutory provisions for withholding funds to ensure prevailing wages override the delay. The court found that Special Term erred in directing the funds to be paid, and the appropriate remedy was a hearing, which has since occurred. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing WageWithholding FundsLabor LawAdministrative HearingCPLR Article 78Expeditious InvestigationFiscal OfficerPublic WorkWage RedeterminationsNew York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2009

Long v. United States Department of Justice

Plaintiffs Susan B. Long and David Burnham brought an action against the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to challenge the DOJ's response to their requests for records from the CASES database. They alleged inadequate search, improper withholding of records under FOIA exemptions, and failure to segregate non-exempt information. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the adequacy of the search, the withholding of JCON IDs, attorney time reporting, and the redaction of sealed cases. Conversely, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the release of vaccine type and date of administration. Summary judgment was otherwise denied without prejudice for both parties on several other exemption claims, requiring supplemental declarations.

FOIA LitigationFreedom of Information ActGovernment RecordsData AccessibilityConfidential InformationAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineExemption LawPrivacy ConcernsSealed Cases
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dolin, Thomas & Solomon LLP v. United States Department of Labor

The law firm Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the United States Department of Labor (DOL) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), alleging wrongful withholding of documents. These documents pertained to DOL Wage and Hour Division Opinion Letters FLSA 2007-1, FLSA 2007-2, and FLSA 2007-4, along with related requests and internal communications. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court partially granted and partially denied both motions, ordering the DOL to produce specific categories of documents, such as enclosure letters, status updates, and generalized procedural communications, for which privilege claims were deemed insufficient. However, the court upheld the DOL's right to withhold draft opinion letters and communications containing specific legal advice, recognizing these as protected by deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

FOIAFreedom of Information ActSummary JudgmentDeliberative Process PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument DisclosureAgency RecordsDOL Opinion LettersGovernment TransparencyExemptions
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiGiovanni v. City of Rochester

Plaintiff Anthony DiGiovanni, a disabled firefighter, sued the City of Rochester for allegedly improper withholding of FICA and state/federal income taxes from his disability payments, arguing these were non-taxable workers' compensation. DiGiovanni brought claims under federal tax statutes, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations, and various New York state laws. The District Court granted summary judgment to the City, dismissing the federal tax claims as they do not create a private cause of action. The court further held that the City's tax withholding procedures, which provided notice via W-2 forms and the opportunity to file exemption certificates, satisfied procedural due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment. With federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, thus dismissing DiGiovanni's complaint in its entirety.

Tax Withholding DisputeWorker's Compensation Benefits42 U.S.C. § 1983 ClaimProcedural Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentSummary Judgment GrantFederal Tax ExemptionState Tax WithholdingMunicipal LiabilityDisabled Firefighter
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 106 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