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

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Glass

The petitioner, a paternal grandmother, sought foster care payments for three children who had been in her custody since July 30, 1988, following their placement by the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS initially provided payments until July 29, 1988, but subsequently denied further funding, asserting that the foster care placement had automatically terminated. The court, in reviewing the Commissioner's determination, held that under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (Social Services Law § 374-a), DSS, as the sending agency, retained jurisdiction and financial responsibility for the children. The court found that the voluntary 'discharge' of the children to the grandmother was an insufficient basis to terminate DSS's ongoing supervisory and financial responsibilities. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying foster care payments was annulled, and the petition seeking such payments was granted.

Foster careInterstate CompactSocial Services LawCPLR article 78Judicial reviewAnnulmentChild custodyFinancial responsibilityAgency responsibilityNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ4509383 (RDG 0064048)
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

MICHAEL BRUGHELLI vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the defendant, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, sought reconsideration of an award finding the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The defendant argued the applicant was not PTD, the medical opinions were unsubstantiated, and the credit calculation for duplicated payments was incorrect. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the award to defer the issue of the defendant's credit for duplicated payments, as the existing evidence did not clearly establish entitlement or a basis to overturn stipulations. The Board otherwise affirmed the original award, denying the defendant's other contentions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Examinerpermanent total disabilitytemporary disability indemnitypermanent disability indemnityduplicated paymentscredit for overpaymentStipulations
References
11
Case No. ADJ8201128
Regular
May 14, 2013

Barry Swartwood vs. UC DAVIS

This case concerns a lien claimant, ARS Legal, seeking payment for medical-legal copy costs incurred in the workers' compensation case of Barry Swartwood v. UC Davis. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied ARS Legal's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding. The WCAB determined that the costs were not reasonably or necessarily incurred, citing that ARS Legal obtained duplicate records after defendant Sedgwick had already objected to payment for such duplicative services. Furthermore, the records ARS Legal obtained were incomplete compared to those acquired by the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBarry SwartwoodUC DavisSedgwickADJ8201128Order Denying ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4621(a)medical-legal copy costsStipulations with Request for Awardlien claimant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1986

Claim of Foglia v. New York City Housing Authority

The claimant, a New York City Housing Authority police officer, sustained a compensable knee injury in 1974. The case was reopened in 1983 due to increased disability, and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was put on notice for potential liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The issue was whether there was an advance payment of compensation, which would relieve the Special Fund from liability. The claimant testified that he retired in 1983 but had been on limited duty performing clerical work at full salary since 1982 due to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that these full salary payments for lighter work constituted an advance payment of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that an advance payment of compensation relieved the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardAdvance PaymentSpecial FundReopened CasesDisabilitySchedule LossPolice OfficerLimited DutySubstantial EvidenceFactual Determination
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, 44 NY3d 45
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Dept.

This case addresses whether the City of Newburgh Fire Department can be reimbursed from workers' compensation benefits for payments made to a disabled firefighter, Adam Schulze, under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Schulze, a retired firefighter with performance of duty (POD) disability retirement, received supplemental payments from the City and workers' compensation awards. The City sought reimbursement, arguing its General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments constituted "salary or wages" or "payments to an employee in like manner as wages" under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 30 (2) or 25 (4) (a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reimbursement, holding that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are pension supplements, not wages, and are made to retired individuals, not employees. The Court clarified that the proper statutory mechanism for the employer to reduce duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a), which allows for the reduction of future General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments by the amount of workers' compensation awards.

Workers' CompensationFirefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsReimbursementPension SupplementsStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawCourt of AppealsPublic Employment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marchese v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Claimant, injured in October 1997, initially received full wages from their employer, then workers' compensation benefits after employment termination. Following an award of benefits in February 2000, a dispute arose regarding the payment of claimant's counsel fee. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the fee should be paid in installments from continuing payments to the claimant, rather than from the portion reimbursing the employer. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that continuing payments were subject to adjustment and thus not an award of compensation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and finding no unfairness in the payment method, as the award was sufficient to cover both employer reimbursement and the attorneys' lien.

Attorney FeesWorkers' Compensation LawLien on CompensationContinuing PaymentsBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewEmployer ReimbursementAward Payment MethodStatutory InterpretationCounsel Fee
References
2
Case No. ADJ1200873 (OAK 0337904) ADJ479879 (OAK 0337905)
Regular
Apr 06, 2009

CARMEN CHACON vs. NATIONAL UPHOLSTERING CO., NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement due to potential mutual mistake of fact regarding duplicate payments of Temporary Disability Indemnity (TDI) and Unemployment Insurance (UI). Both the defendant and the Employment Development Department (EDD) sought reconsideration, arguing the original order did not adequately protect their interests regarding these duplicate payments. The WCAB found that EDD's due process rights were violated by a lack of proper notice and service regarding the C&R. The matter was returned to the trial level for a new decision to determine if a mutual mistake occurred and to consider EDD's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCarmen ChaconNational Upholstering Co.National Liability & Fire Ins. Co.Employment Development Department (EDD)Compromise and Release (C&R)Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR)Mutual Mistake of FactDuplicate PaymentsTemporary Disability Indemnity (TDI)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2005

Claim of Horton v. Salt

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that reduced penalties against the employer and its carrier for late benefit payments. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially assessed a penalty of 20% of the late payments plus six $300 assessments. The Board agreed on late payments but reduced the penalty to only one $300 assessment, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e) as allowing a single $300 assessment per "instance" of application. The Court found the Board's interpretation not irrational but noted its inconsistency with prior Board decisions on similar facts without providing an explanation. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltiesStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAgency PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardEmployer Obligations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,376 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