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. 534273
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Amber Bakerian

Claimant Amber Bakerian appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had denied her request for a hearing concerning future wage expectancy under Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (5) and an award for protracted healing periods. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's denial of the wage expectancy issue, upholding the application of the laches doctrine due to the significant delay in raising the claim. However, the Court reversed the Board's decision regarding the protracted healing period, finding it erred in deeming the issue moot. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision on the protracted healing period.

Workers' CompensationWage ExpectancyLachesSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Total DisabilityProtracted Healing PeriodAppellate ReviewRemittalPrejudiceMedical Opinions
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vandewalker v. Snowball Tree Farm, Inc.

Claimant sustained a left foot injury in November 1982, leading to amputation and subsequent surgeries. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCU) initially found a 70% schedule loss of use, later increasing it to 100% after further medical examination in August 1987. The WCU awarded compensation at $105 per week, with a temporary total disability rate of $183.33 for a specific period. The employer appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board modified the award, asserting the permanent partial disability rate of $105 per week applied for the entire schedule loss. Claimant appealed this modification, arguing for the higher temporary total disability rate during the protracted healing period. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the injury was classified as a permanent partial disability dating from the accident, and therefore the maximum permanent partial disability rate of $105 per week was appropriate for the entire award period.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAmputationBenefit ModificationAppellate ReviewMedical Examiner ReportJudiciary LawFoot Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedman

This case examines whether claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits for a week in July during which they received vacation pay from their employer. The court references a previous decision, *Matter of Miranda* (Catherwood), which allowed such benefits under certain conditions. However, the court highlights that subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law was amended in 1963 specifically to correct inequities and prevent employees from receiving both vacation pay and unemployment benefits for the same period. Despite the board's finding that the union agreement did not designate a vacation period, the court interpreted the agreement's clauses as designating the first week in July for vacation. The court concluded that upholding the board's original decision would undermine the legislative intent of the 1963 amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVacation PayLabor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCollective Bargaining AgreementBoard Decision ReversalRemandWorkers' RightsEmployer Obligations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. ADJ10082337
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

RUPERTO HERNANDEZ vs. OC HOME BUILDERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a construction worker who sustained an industrial injury to his left forearm but not his cervical spine, as initially determined by the administrative law judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the decision to award temporary disability benefits from the date of injury to October 8, 2015. The Board clarified that temporary partial disability payments are wage-loss based even if the applicant worked during their healing period. The finding of no industrial injury to the cervical spine was affirmed based on a lack of consistent medical reporting of neck complaints.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLeft Forearm InjuryCervical Spine InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianSubstantial EvidenceWage Loss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ10307625; ADJ10307786
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

RENEE SKELTON vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a denial for temporary disability indemnity for time lost attending medical appointments. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, amending the original decision. The WCAB found the applicant is entitled to temporary disability indemnity for wage loss incurred while attending medical-legal examinations, as per Labor Code section 4600(e)(1). However, the WCAB affirmed the denial of temporary disability for time lost attending treatment appointments after returning to work. A dissenting opinion argued for entitlement to temporary disability for attending treatment appointments during the healing period, even after returning to work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability IndemnityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryReturn-to-WorkMedical Treatment AppointmentsMedical-Legal ExaminationsPanel QMEWage Loss
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07640 [189 AD3d 1855]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Downer v. New York City Dept. of Corr.

Patrick Downer, a correction officer, sustained work-related shoulder injuries in January 2015, leading to multiple surgeries and a workers' compensation claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits, including for a protracted healing period (PHP), which the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified, reducing the PHP weeks. Downer's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that its review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, and found that Downer had not met the burden to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider issues.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseProtracted Healing PeriodBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousNewly Discovered EvidenceMaterial Change in ConditionAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00138 [212 AD3d 969]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2023

Matter of Bakerian v. Washington County

Claimant Amber Bakerian appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her requests for a hearing on future wage expectancy and protracted healing periods. The Board had applied the doctrine of laches to the wage expectancy claim due to a significant delay without adequate explanation, causing prejudice to the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision regarding laches for the wage expectancy issue, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court found the Board erred in denying, as moot, the claimant's request for a hearing on further awards for temporary total disability under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (4-a). The case was modified and affirmed, and remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Laches DoctrineWage ExpectancyWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Total DisabilityProtracted Healing PeriodAppellate ReviewEmployer PrejudiceRemandAverage Weekly Wage
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,701 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