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. GRO 0031003 GRO 0031004
Regular
May 19, 2008

LOLA WATTS vs. OPTIONS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case to the trial level. The PWCJ's prior findings did not adequately account for the applicant's cognitive deficits, as determined by a neuropsychologist. The Board emphasized that all factors of disability must be considered in the permanent disability rating, requiring further proceedings to develop the record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardPresiding Workers Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCognitive DeficitsOrthopedistNeuropsychologist
References
3
Case No. ADJ8132311
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

Celia Kalbaugh vs. County of Kern

This case involves a claim by Celia Kalbaugh for 100% permanent disability due to a psyche injury sustained as a Deputy Detentions Officer. The defendant, County of Kern, contested the findings, arguing the Agreed Medical Examiner was unqualified to assess employability and that the applicant was capable of vocational rehabilitation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the Agreed Medical Examiner's findings of profound cognitive deficits preventing work were persuasive. The Board also found the applicant's vocational consultant's opinion, supporting unsuitability for rehabilitation and the open labor market, credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCelia KalbaughCounty of KernPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Orders and Awardpermanent disabilityDeputy Detentions Officerpsyche injuryAgreed Medical Examinervocational rehabilitation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1995

Claim of Weingarten v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

The claimant sustained head, back, and right shoulder injuries in March 1989 while working for Pathmark Stores, Inc. She developed an organic mental syndrome and multiple cognitive deficits, leading to an award of permanent partial disability benefits. Later, the Workers’ Compensation Board’s Office of Vocational Rehabilitation recommended treatment at the Head Injury Technical School (HITS). Despite the employer's attempts to challenge the necessity and apportionment of the treatment costs, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ordered the employer to pay the entire $245,000 bill, a decision affirmed by the Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer failed to present sufficient medical evidence to contradict the necessity of the claimant's participation in the HITS program or to challenge the itemization of the bill.

brain injurycognitive deficitspermanent partial disabilityworkers' compensation benefitsmedical treatment authorizationapportionment of costsemployer liabilityadministrative appealburden of proofmedical evidence admissibility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilmerding v. O'Dwyer

The plaintiff, identified as a taxpayer, initiated an action seeking to prevent the City of New York and its Board of Transportation from issuing and selling budget notes. The purpose of these notes was to cover a significant deficit resulting from retroactive wage increases approved for subway employees. The central legal question involved the interpretation of the Local Finance Law, specifically whether the deficit qualified as an 'expenditure' with financing limitations or a 'claim which may be settled or compromised,' allowing for unlimited funding. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the subway deficit constituted a mandatory claim subject to settlement or compromise under the Local Finance Law, thereby permitting the issuance of the budget notes.

Municipal FinanceBudget NotesSubway OperationsLocal Finance LawStatutory InterpretationWage IncreasesPublic EmployeesTaxpayer ActionInjunctionCity of New York
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hudacs v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Frito-Lay, Inc. did not violate Labor Law § 193 by requiring its route salespeople to reimburse the company for unremitted funds collected from customers. The court determined that these repayments were distinct from wage deductions, which are prohibited by the statute, and instead represented the full remittance of company funds temporarily entrusted to employees. The case originated from an order by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 193, which was subsequently revoked by the Industrial Board of Appeals. While the Supreme Court initially reinstated the Commissioner's order, the Appellate Division reversed, finding the Board's interpretation rational. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Labor Law § 193, specifically whether requiring employees to make up account deficits constituted an unauthorized deduction from wages or a separate transaction for the repayment of company funds. The Court emphasized that Frito-Lay allowed setoffs for deficits not attributable to the failure to fully remit funds, such as damaged products or theft, aligning with the statutory purpose of placing certain risks on the employer. Ultimately, the Court concluded that under the unique factual circumstances where employees convert company funds to their own accounts before remitting, the requirement to make up deficits did not contravene Labor Law § 193, as the funds were never wages.

Wage DeductionLabor Law § 193Employer Reimbursement PolicyRoute SalespeopleUnremitted FundsIndustrial Board of AppealsCollective BargainingNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Statutory InterpretationEmployee Accountability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giudi v. New Paltz Fire Department

The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the claimant remains unable to perform their prior employment duties as a chef, or those of a reasonable substitute, due to cognitive impairments, is supported by substantial evidence. This evidence includes the claimant's testimony and the opinion of a clinical neuropsychologist, who stated that the cognitive impairments prevent the claimant from working as a chef or military police officer. The Board's crediting of this evidence, which justified the finding of over 75% earning capacity loss, was upheld. The employer's argument that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard was rejected. The decision is affirmed.

cognitive impairmentsearning capacity lossdisability benefitsneuropsychologyoccupational injurymedical opinionappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation lawemployment duties
References
5
Case No. ADJ6619965 ADJ9843987
Regular
Jul 16, 2018

JESUS ZARAGOZA vs. KOOL KOUNTRY, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Board granted reconsideration to review the finding of injury to the bladder, sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, and cognitive disability/headaches, as well as the applicant's earnings. The Board affirmed the finding of injury to the bladder, sleep disorder, and sexual dysfunction but reversed the finding of injury related to cognitive impairment/headaches, finding insufficient medical evidence. Additionally, the Board amended the applicant's earnings to $270.00 per week, based on the parties' stipulation regarding the permanent disability rate, and affirmed the overall award except for these specific modifications.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsStipulationAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ1880234 (GOL 0097047)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

HSING TEREK vs. EMBASSY SUITES/WINDSOR CAPITAL GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant suffered an admitted industrial injury from a slip and fall as a housekeeper. The defendant sought reconsideration of the findings of total permanent disability and injury to the "psyche, head, internal, and neurological/cognitive impairment." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the ambiguity of the "internal" injury finding, which they found insufficiently specified. While affirming the total permanent disability finding and injury to psyche, head, and neurological/cognitive impairment, the Board rescinded the "internal" injury finding and returned the case for further proceedings to clarify the specific internal systems or conditions injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheNeurological/Cognitive ImpairmentTotal Permanent DisabilityApportionmentHousekeeperSlip and Fall
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02599 [171 AD3d 1277]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. A&T Healthcare, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board assumed administration of the insolvent Healthcare Providers Self-Insurance Trust, which had a deficit of $132.5 million. The Board initiated an action to recover the deficit from former employer-members, including Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc., who were jointly and severally liable. Motherly Love Home Care Services Inc. executed two settlement agreements but subsequently moved to vacate them, claiming a unilateral mistake by believing they had only signed duplicate copies of one agreement. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no basis for vacating the agreements given their distinct terms and the clear clarifications provided by the Board's counsel.

Workers' Compensation TrustInsolvencySettlement AgreementVacate AgreementUnilateral MistakeJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewContract PrinciplesHome Health CareEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06050 [209 AD3d 1233]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Contractors Compensation Trust v. $49.99 Sewer Man, Inc.

Contractors Compensation Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued member Thos. H. Gannon & Sons, Inc. for unpaid deficit assessments. The defendant sought summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by a six-year statute of limitations, arguing the claim accrued upon the approval of the deficit assessment. Supreme Court partially denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the cause of action accrued when the defendant failed to make payments according to the established payment plan on March 3, 2014, rather than the earlier assessment approval date. Consequently, the Appellate Division concluded that the action, initiated in December 2019, was timely.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insured TrustStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeficit AssessmentPro Rata PaymentAccrual DateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird Department
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 94 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