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

Claim of Perrin v. Builders Resource, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the reimbursement rate for home health aide services provided to a claimant by their sister. Initially, the carrier denied payment but was later directed to pay. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the reimbursement rate at $12 per hour for services starting in 2011, which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed, solely challenging this rate. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant was not an aggrieved party concerning the reimbursement rate, as the dispute was between the care provider (the sister) and the carrier. The court affirmed that the claimant received the care sought and could not raise issues on behalf of the care provider.

Workers' CompensationHome Health Aide ServicesReimbursement RateAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCare ProviderWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ProcedureNew York LawCarrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2006

Belance v. Manhattan Beer Distributors

The claimant, an employee of Manhattan Beer Distributors, suffered a work-related injury in November 2001 and was found to have concurrent employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge directed the employer’s carrier to pay the entire award and seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The Special Disability Fund challenged the Board's decision that allowed the carrier to seek reimbursement for awards made after form C-251.3 was filed, arguing that the form must be filed prior to the initial award. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation, holding that the timely filing of form C-251.3 before subsequent concurrent employment awards allows for reimbursement for those later awards, even if not filed before the initial award. Therefore, the Special Disability Fund was directed to reimburse the carrier for concurrent employment portions of awards made after November 2002.

Special Disability FundReimbursementConcurrent EmploymentForm C-251.3Timeliness of FilingStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionDisability AwardCarrier Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ1975641 (SRO 0139288)
Regular
Nov 15, 2010

LETEBRHAN BERHE vs. DLK VENTURES INC. dba HANNA HOUSE, RIDLEY NURSING HOME; VIRGINIA, SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY as, administered by FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

Defendant seeks reconsideration of an award finding applicant sustained a work injury and granted benefits, including reimbursement to EDD from applicant's permanent disability award. The defendant contends the WCJ erred by not ordering applicant to reimburse EDD directly. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken to allow the WCJ to determine EDD's entitlement to reimbursement directly from the defendant, given the defendant's failure to notify EDD of permanent disability payments after receiving EDD's lien notice.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDLK VENTURES INC.HANNA HOUSERIDLEY NURSING HOMEVIRGINIA SURETY INSURANCE COMPANYFIRSTCOMP OMAHAADJ1975641SRO 0139288LETEBRHAN BERHEFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Claim of Salatti v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The claimant, a data entry clerk, sustained work-related injuries to their left wrist. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded lost wage benefits and directed employer reimbursement on May 2, 2003. The employer's carrier appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the reimbursement order on August 5, 2003. Subsequently, the claimant's attorney challenged the reimbursement direction, but the WCLJ, in a June 8, 2005 decision, declined to address it due to untimeliness, as the issue was not raised in the initial appeal. The Board denied full review of this issue. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion regarding the timeliness of review applications under Workers' Compensation Law § 23, and finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the claimant's request untimely.

Workers' CompensationUntimely AppealEmployer ReimbursementBoard DiscretionLost Wage BenefitsWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewSection 23
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2008

Jaworek v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Claimant suffered a knee injury in July 2007 while working for an employer, with a portion of her average weekly wage attributable to concurrent employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed the employer to pay the full benefits award of $500 per week, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the WCLJ denied it, citing 2007 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, stating that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (h) (2) (A) barred such claims for injuries on or after July 1, 2007. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the employer's statutory interpretation argument.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentStatutory InterpretationLegislative Intent2007 AmendmentsAppellate ReviewBenefits AwardFund ClosureNew York Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rivera v. North Central Bronx Hospital

The employer appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the Board incorrectly interpreted Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (7) by mandating reimbursement to the claimant’s doctor for an EMG test. The employer contended that since the claimant failed to use a specified provider as per statutory notice, it should not be obligated to pay. However, the court found no statutory or historical support for nonpayment as a remedy, noting that the law aims to provide swift benefits to injured employees and prevent providers from collecting directly from workers. The court emphasized that allowing the employer to avoid payment would harm medical providers and deter their participation in the workers’ compensation system. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, requiring the employer to pay its in-network rate to the claimant's doctor.

Workers' Compensation LawEMG test reimbursementEmployer appealStatutory interpretationMedical provider paymentClaimant medical expensesSelf-insured employersDiagnostic testsLegislative intentBoard decision affirmed
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2015

Matter of Newbill v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation crew chief, injured his right ankle and foot at work and was awarded disability benefits. His self-insured employer paid his full weekly wages during a period of disability and timely sought reimbursement for these advanced payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the employer's reimbursement request against a 20% schedule loss of use award for the right foot. The Board affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed, arguing that reimbursement should not cover periods where no compensation awards were initially made. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that an employer is entitled to full reimbursement from a schedule loss of use award for advanced wages paid during disability, as schedule awards are not allocable to specific periods of lost work.

Schedule Loss of UseReimbursementAdvanced Wage PaymentsDisability BenefitsEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityTimely Claim
References
10
Case No. 22108137
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Matter of Harrell v. Blue Diamond Sheet Metal

The Self-Insured Employer appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) which established a claim for a consequential left knee injury. The WCLJ's decision also directed reimbursement to the claimant for out-of-pocket medical expenses related to the left knee. The Board Panel, after reviewing the evidence, found no reason to disturb the WCLJ's findings regarding the consequential left knee injury. The Board Panel also affirmed the WCLJ's directive for reimbursement of medical expenses. Therefore, the WCLJ's decision was affirmed.

consequential injuryleft knee injuryout-of-pocket medical expensesWCLJ decisionBoard Panelself-insured employerreimbursementmedical treatment
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05650 [152 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2017

Matter of Buckner v. Buckner & Kourofsky, LLP

Claimant Raymond Buckner, who suffered multiple work-related injuries resulting in permanent total disability, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board affirmed a WCLJ's decision that reimbursement for home health care services provided by claimant's wife should be paid directly to her, rather than to the claimant. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erroneously concluded this, citing prior case law that mandates payment of such reimbursement directly to the claimant. The Court explicitly stated that Matter of Perrin was misinterpreted by the Board and did not tacitly overrule prior decisions. Therefore, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Home Health Care ReimbursementSpousal CarePermanent Total DisabilityWork-Related InjuriesWorkers' Compensation Board AppealErroneous ConclusionPrior Case LawPayment to ClaimantFamily Member ServicesWCLJ Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,120 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