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

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp. v. Diamond

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp., a low bidder for two city roofing contracts, had its bids rejected by municipal respondents for failing to meet experience requirements. The IAS Court initially sided with Giampilis, deeming the rejection arbitrary by stating the experience of the Giampilis brothers in a companion corporation should be considered. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the municipal respondents had a rational basis for rejecting the bids. The court highlighted that judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision. It concluded that the bids were non-responsive as the corporate petitioner itself did not meet the specific experience criteria outlined in the bid documents, and there was no legal obligation to 'pierce the corporate veil' to consider the experience of a companion corporation.

Bid RejectionPublic ContractsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCorporate VeilContract BiddingExperience RequirementsGovernment ProcurementNew York LawAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromer v. County of Nassau

This case addresses whether individuals formerly employed by the County of Nassau in positions funded under the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 are entitled to credit for their EEA experience when determining their salaries under a collective bargaining agreement. The Appellate Division initially found the action not time-barred but improperly determined that these individuals did not commence county service until they secured civil service appointment. The higher court agreed that the action was not time-barred but found no basis to deny credit for EEA experience, given the established employment relationship and the language of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the case was remitted for a review of the facts.

Incremental Salary PlanCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment Experience CreditEmergency Employment ActTime-Barred ActionAppellate ReviewSalary DeterminationCounty EmploymentFederal Funding
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1986

Claim of Grandinetti v. Syracuse University

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision finding a claimant totally industrially disabled following a compensable back injury in 1982. The self-insured employer challenged this determination, asserting the claimant was only partially disabled and that his failure to complete a rehabilitation program and refusal to undergo a myelogram should preclude a total disability finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing abundant medical evidence supporting total disability, the claimant’s age, work experience, and limited education. The court also found the claimant’s refusal of a myelogram and potential laminectomy to be reasonable given the associated dangers and his family's adverse experiences.

Industrial DisabilityBack Injury CompensationMedical Treatment RefusalVocational RehabilitationEmployer LiabilityDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewMedical Expert OpinionPre-existing InjurySpinal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Roberts v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC

Plaintiff Samuel Roberts sustained severe injuries during an experiment at the University of Rochester's (UR) Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The experiment was proposed by Dr. Hans Herrmann, an employee of Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LA). Roberts filed a negligence action against LA, and LA subsequently filed a third-party complaint against UR. The court, after reviewing additional discovery and motions, found that LA and Dr. Herrmann did not owe a duty of care to Roberts, as the equipment and lab were under UR's control. The plaintiff's expert witness was also disqualified. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, granted LA's motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted UR's motion to dismiss LA's third-party complaint, thereby dismissing the entire complaint.

NegligenceDuty of CareSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessDaubert StandardWorkers' Compensation LawLaboratory AccidentEquipment QualificationThird-Party LiabilityFederal Demonstration Partnership
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Covert v. Niagara County

Claimant, a public assistance recipient, suffered a work-related injury while assigned to Niagara County through a work experience program. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and determined an average weekly wage based on public assistance benefits. After public assistance benefits were suspended, the claimant sought lost wage benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision, ruling that payments made under the work experience program constituted "wages" under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Niagara County and its third-party administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, thus precluding immediate appeal. The court noted that review could be sought if and when a final determination on wage replacement benefits is issued.

Wage DeterminationPublic Assistance BenefitsWork Experience ProgramInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionMedical Evidence SufficiencySchedule Loss of UseLost Wage ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewFinality of Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1971

In re the Claim of Bus

This case involves an appeal by an employer, Bethlehem Steel Company, from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a Referee's decision granting unemployment benefits to claimants. Claimants were laid off after refusing offers for lower-paying jobs in different departments, arguing a substantial wage reduction (at least 15%) constituted good cause for refusal. Both the Referee and the Appeal Board agreed with the claimants, citing the significant reduction in earnings as good cause, consistent with their prior decisions. The Appellate Court, however, reversed the decision, holding that a percentage reduction in wages alone does not constitute good cause for refusing suitable employment for which one is fitted by experience and training, emphasizing the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Law is to ease involuntary unemployment, not subsidize workers who refuse suitable work. The matter was remitted for further proceedings to determine if the offered jobs were indeed suitable for the claimants based on their training and experience.

Unemployment BenefitsWage ReductionGood Cause for RefusalSuitable EmploymentLabor Law InterpretationAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardBethlehem Steel CompanySeniority RightsIndustrial Commissioner
References
9
Case No. ADJ4467783 (LAO 0787394)
Regular
Nov 21, 2018

JIA YING LI vs. WOK EXPERIENCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address unresolved issues regarding the applicant's Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The WCAB rescinded the trial judge's decision, which had found no jurisdiction to alter the C&R, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board noted confusion surrounding the C&R's terms, particularly concerning a Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) addendum, and determined that the trial judge must review all relevant documents, including a previously unconsidered handwritten attachment. Ultimately, the WCAB found further evidence development necessary to clarify the C&R's terms and potential enforcement issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5804LachesBreach of ContractRescissionDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code Section 5803
References
3
Case No. ADJ10116932
En Banc
May 10, 2019

Kris Wilson vs. STATE OF CA CAL FIRE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board held that a firefighter's injury, which resulted in a near-death experience and significant physical impairments, qualifies as a 'catastrophic injury' under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B), thus allowing an increased permanent disability rating for the consequential psychiatric injury.

en bancreconsiderationpermanent disabilitypsychiatric injurysection 4660.1(c)catastrophic injuryviolent actcompensable consequenceproximate causepre-existing condition
References
28
Case No. SAC 355328
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

COLLEEN JORDAN vs. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

The Court of Appeal remanded this case for the Appeals Board to award attorney's fees to the applicant for responding to the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board awarded $4,470.00 in attorney's fees, calculated at $300 per hour for 14.9 hours of work. This award reflects the attorney's experience, the complexity of the case, and the successful opposition to the writ.

Labor Code § 5801attorney's feesWrit of ReviewCourt of Appealsupplemental awardhourly rateworkers' compensation specialistappellate complexityreasonable attorney's feesWCAB
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 123 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