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 Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. Albany Medical Center Hospital

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's wage expectancy calculation. The employer challenged the Board's consideration of the claimant's potential earnings as a physician, rather than a part-time nursing aide, given her age and career aspirations. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the rule limiting wage expectancy to similar employment does not apply in atypical situations, especially when a claimant is actively pursuing a higher-earning career path like medicine, with their current job being secondary.

Wage ExpectancyFuture EarningsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewCareer ProgressionAtypical EmploymentAverage Weekly WageMedical CareerPart-time WorkUnder 25 Claimant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maw v. Wal-Mart

The claimant, injured in 1999 as an 18-year-old sales associate, sought workers' compensation benefits with a focus on future wage expectancy as a professional dancer. Initially, her average weekly wage was set at $226.38, but a WCLJ later adjusted it to $800 after classifying her with a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this to $450, based on potential earnings as a dance instructor, arguing that her pursuit of a professional dancing career was too speculative at the time of injury. The Board also limited the application of this adjustment to awards made from the date of permanency, February 12, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support both the wage expectancy rate determination and the effective date of the adjustment.

Wage expectancyPermanent partial disabilityAverage weekly wageProfessional dancing careerDance instructor earningsSpeculative employmentAppellate reviewTemporary employmentFuture earnings potentialDate of permanency
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Francis

This case concerns a bench trial to determine if three non-marital children (J, D, and S) are entitled to inherit from the decedent under EPTL 4-1.2 (a) (2) (C). The children's mother, the petitioner, presented extensive evidence of the decedent's relationship with her and the children, including cohabitation, financial support, and introductions to his family. The respondent, the decedent's spouse, contested this claim, asserting the decedent denied fathering other children and consistently resided with her. The court, finding the petitioner's evidence clear and convincing, concluded that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity of the children, citing photographic evidence, rental agreements, tax returns, and testimony from both families. Consequently, the court ruled that J, D, and S are entitled to inherit from the decedent as his non-marital children.

Inheritance LawNon-marital ChildrenPaternityEPTL 4-1.2Clear and Convincing EvidenceOpen and Notorious AcknowledgmentEstate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFamily LawDistributees
References
4
Case No. W2000-02953-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

Shirley Schulze, A/K/A Shirley Schulze Vires v. Jere Steven

Shirley Schulze filed a claim against the estate of Sam Vires, seeking compensation for personal caregiving services rendered to the decedent. Despite a long-term romantic relationship and cohabitation, Shirley and Sam were never legally married, and Sam's will did not include Shirley as a beneficiary. The trial court denied her claim, ruling that her services were rendered gratuitously and lacked an express or implied agreement for payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, concluding that vague expressions of intent to 'take care of' Shirley did not constitute a contract for services. The court emphasized that recovery cannot be based solely on the expectation of an inheritance without a valid contract.

Estate LawContract LawImplied ContractGratuitous ServicesCaregiver CompensationTestamentary ProvisionWill ContestProbate LawCohabitationQuasi-Contract
References
5
Case No. 05-08-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

In the Interest of P.C.S.

This dissenting and concurring opinion, authored by Justice Bea Ann Smith, addresses the contentious issue of whether an inheritance should be classified as 'income' for child support calculations under the Texas Family Code. Justice Smith argues against the majority's interpretation, asserting that an inheritance is an asset, not income, and therefore should not be included in the initial calculation of net resources as per section 154.062(b)(5). Instead, she posits that an inheritance is an 'additional factor' under section 154.123(b)(3) that allows trial courts to adjust child support guidelines. The dissent concludes that the trial court's decision, which treated Father's $400,000 inheritance as an asset to justify increased child support rather than including it as income, correctly harmonizes the relevant family code sections.

Child SupportInheritanceTexas Family CodeStatutory InterpretationIncome DefinitionNet ResourcesDissenting OpinionFamily LawFinancial ResourcesChild Support Guidelines
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Lexington Center

The claimant, injured in 1991 at age 20, was classified with a permanent partial disability and received a wage expectancy adjustment based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). In 2001, after back surgery, he became temporarily totally disabled. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the initial decision, ruling that the future wage expectancy adjustment should not be applied during the period of temporary total disability. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that the wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) applies equally to periods of temporary and permanent disability if the worker would reasonably have expected higher wages during that time, especially given the claimant's age of 31 during his temporary total disability. The court found the Board abused its discretion and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation of the statute.

Wage ExpectancyPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 14 (5)RemandBack Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1979

Claim of Kirchner v. Park Edge Supermarkets, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant who injured his right hand in 1977 at age 18. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially established the average weekly wage (AWW) at $108.75. A subsequent ALJ, after a statutory amendment in August 1978 allowed consideration of wage expectancy for claimants under 25, recomputed the AWW to $160 and directed a schedule award for permanent partial disability. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing against the consideration of wage expectancy. The Board affirmed the decision, ruling that the amended statute applied to awards made on or after its effective date, validating the ALJ's recomputation of the AWW based on wage expectancy.

Wage ExpectancyPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageStatutory AmendmentWorkers' Compensation LawSchedule AwardInjured WorkerAppellate ReviewBoard AffirmanceStatutory Interpretation
References
1
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fox v. Crosbie-Brownlie, Inc.

On December 1, 1997, the claimant suffered a work-related injury, leading to temporary partial disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board later determined a permanent partial disability, ruling that future wage expectancy should apply only to the portion of the schedule award exceeding the temporary disability period. The court reversed this decision, clarifying that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) allows wage expectancy solely for permanent partial disability awards, not temporary ones. It emphasized that a schedule award compensates for lost earning power, independent of actual time lost, and should wholly incorporate the determined wage expectancy rate. The court concluded that any prior temporary disability payments should serve as a credit against the total schedule award.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary DisabilityWage ExpectancySchedule Loss-of-Use AwardDisability BenefitsCredit OffsetEarning PowerNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 194 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