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 Salinas v. Diner

A claimant, a waitress, suffered a fractured hip and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Her case was established for a work-related injury, and a hearing was held to determine her average weekly wage, specifically regarding tip income. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage as $111.30 based on reported salary and tips. The claimant appealed, contending that unreported tip income of $266 should have been included, which would raise her average weekly wage to $199.97. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that Workers' Compensation Law § 14 and 12 NYCRR 357.1 [c] mandate that tip valuation be based on amounts reported to the employer, absent a specific agreement.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTip IncomeUnreported IncomeWage CalculationWaitressFractured HipBoard Decision AppealStatutory InterpretationNYCRR
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
Case No. 4:16-cv-732
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

Nevada v. United States Department of Labor

The State of Nevada and twenty other states (State Plaintiffs) filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor, challenging the Final Rule that raised the minimum salary level for the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemption. The court consolidated this action with a similar challenge by Business Plaintiffs. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Department exceeded its delegated authority under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) by raising the minimum salary level to effectively supplant the duties test for the EAP exemption. It concluded that Congress intended the exemption to be based on duties, not primarily on salary, thus rendering the Final Rule unlawful. The injunction was issued nationwide, preventing the implementation and enforcement of the Final Rule pending further order of the Court.

Overtime ExemptionFLSA RegulationsSalary ThresholdDuties TestAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationChevron DeferencePreliminary InjunctionFederal AgenciesState Sovereignty
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04944 [162 AD3d 1777]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Matter of Town of Tonawanda (Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Assn.)

This case involves an arbitration matter between the Town of Tonawanda, as Respondent, and the Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Association, as Appellants. The Appellants' motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The decision was rendered on June 29, 2018.

ArbitrationMotion to appealLeave to appealDenialAppellate practiceLabor lawPublic employmentCollective bargainingFourth DepartmentCourt of Appeals (denied)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 323 v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd.

Justice Willett concurs with the Court's judgment, agreeing that the Edwards Aquifer Authority became effective as per the Bar-shop opinion date. However, he emphasizes the unresolved fundamental legal question concerning when an appellate-court judgment becomes final and takes effect, which he believes warrants the Court's rulemaking attention. He argues that the mandate, rather than the opinion's issuance, should generally be considered the definitive date for a judgment's finality and enforceability, citing various rules and statutes that link finality to the mandate's issuance. Willett contrasts his view with arguments that judgments are effective upon issuance, highlighting the period before a mandate issues during which the court can still modify its decision. He concludes by reiterating his agreement with the Court's outcome in the present case but advocates for clear guidelines on judgment finality through the rulemaking process.

Appellate ProcedureJudgment FinalityMandateConcurring OpinionEdwards Aquifer Authority ActSupersedeasDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionTexas Supreme CourtLegal Practice
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1977

Orbinati v. Utica Mutual Insurance

A claimant, employed as a physical education teacher and track/football coach by the Utica City School District, sustained an injury in August 1970. His average weekly wage was calculated to include his coaching stipend. Following his injury, he returned to his teaching role with restrictions that prevented him from coaching. Despite subsequent salary increments resulting in a higher overall salary than his pre-injury average weekly wage, the claimant contended he was experiencing reduced earnings due to the loss of his coaching allowance. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the referee affirmed there were no reduced earnings, concluding that his teaching and coaching constituted a single, integrated employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationDual EmploymentSingle EmploymentCoaching StipendUtica City School DistrictWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DecisionInjury in Course of Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

The petitioner, a physician, sought a recalculation of his retirement benefits, specifically challenging the Comptroller's decision to exclude compensation from 1996 to 1999. The Comptroller had determined that the petitioner was an independent contractor during this period, making his earnings ineligible for inclusion in his final average salary. The court reviewed this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Finding substantial evidence to support the Comptroller's findings, which included the county issuing 1099 tax forms, requiring specific contracts, and the absence of employee benefits, the court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.

retirement benefitsindependent contractorfinal average salaryComptroller determinationCPLR article 78 proceedingOrleans County1099 tax formsW-2 wage statementsemployer-employee relationshippension recalculation
References
3
Case No. 470 F.Supp. 1150
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1980

Carter v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc.

This Memorandum Order addresses objections to a special master's report concerning back pay awards in a Title VII employment discrimination case against Shop-Rite Foods, Inc. The district court largely adopts the special master's recommendations, with a significant modification: it rejects any reduction in back pay awards for the possibility of claimant termination, resolving uncertainties against the employer. The court also declines to include an additional inflation factor beyond the 6.18% compounded interest rate already applied. It upholds the use of an "average claimant salary" for comparisons and approves the special master's fees and attorneys' fees, allocating the master's costs equally between the parties. The final judgment grants awards to claimants based on modified calculations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIBack Pay AwardSpecial Master ReportInflation AdjustmentInterest CalculationTax EffectsStatistical AnalysisRemediesClass Action
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 4,105 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