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

Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC

Justice Ellerin's dissenting memorandum argues that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) does not preempt state labor laws concerning an undocumented alien's recovery of lost wages. Ellerin contends that denying such recovery would undermine IRCA's purpose by enabling employers who violate the act to benefit from their unlawful conduct. The dissent emphasizes that Congress did not intend for IRCA to supersede state common law remedies for lost wages in tort actions, citing legislative history. It further asserts that awarding lost earnings to undocumented aliens aligns with state policy and does not significantly impede IRCA's objectives. Therefore, the dissent concludes that New York law should govern, allowing a jury to determine the plaintiff's potential earnings.

Immigration Reform and Control ActIRCA PreemptionUndocumented Workers RightsLost WagesState Labor LawFederal PreemptionEmployer SanctionsTort DamagesSummary JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
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

Claim of House v. International Talc Co.

Arthur House suffered a compensable occupational disease in 1973, resulting in permanent total disability and received workers' compensation benefits based on his 1973 average weekly wage. He died in 1995 from lung disease. His widow, the claimant, filed for death benefits, contending the benefits should be calculated based on the average weekly wage of a comparable employee for the year preceding his death (March 17, 1994, to March 17, 1995). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board, however, determined that death benefits should be calculated based on House's average weekly wage from the date of his original injury, April 5, 1973. This Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 2, 14, and 38 to establish that the date of the original injury or accident is the basis for computing both disability and death benefits, not the date of death.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationDate of DisablementAppellate DivisionTalcosisClaimant's Widow
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tucker

The claimant, a licensed practical nurse concurrently employed at Woodhull Medical Center (part of New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation) and Community Hospital, sustained an injury at Woodhull. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a permanent partial disability and calculated benefits based on combined average weekly wages from both employments, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the City's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, reasoning that the City's liability for lost wages would not have been greater under prior law, as the claimant would have been entitled to the statutory maximum benefit irrespective of concurrent employment. The City appealed, arguing that all benefits received resulted from the increase in average weekly wages due to concurrent employments, thus entitling them to full reimbursement. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's interpretation which aligns with the legislative intent of section 14 (6) to prevent employers from being liable for greater benefits due to the amendment, and to provide compensation for lost wages from full-time employment despite injury in a lower-paying job. The court also noted the Board's role as the drafter and original proponent of the legislation, entitling its interpretation to judicial deference.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageSpecial Disability FundReimbursementStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewJudicial Deference
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmidt v. Buffalo General Hospital

This case concerns a motion filed by defendants Buffalo General Hospital, Drs. Canver, and Drs. Guanzon, seeking to reduce a plaintiff's award for past and future lost earnings. The defendants argued for an offset based on collateral sources, specifically the plaintiff's Social Security retirement benefits, benefits received as a wife, and her husband's retirement benefits from Niagara Mohawk, citing CPLR 4545 (a). The plaintiff contested the statute's applicability and asserted that these benefits were not direct reimbursements for lost earnings. Presiding Justice Kevin M. Dillon determined that Social Security retirement benefits, derived from past employment and age, do not directly replace lost earnings. Similarly, spousal or husband's retirement benefits were not found to correspond to the plaintiff's lost wages. Consequently, the court found that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to establish the necessary correspondence between the alleged collateral sources and the jury's award, leading to the denial of the motion to reduce the award.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleLost EarningsSocial Security BenefitsCPLR 4545 (a)DamagesMotion to Reduce AwardCivil ProcedureNew York LawTort Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1972

Claim of Mazziotto v. Brookfield Construction Co.

The employer, Brookfield Construction Co., Inc., appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision that found the claimant permanently partially disabled and awarded compensation for lost wages subsequent to his retirement. The claimant had suffered multiple back injuries and retired at age 65 due to union requirements and applied for social security and his union pension. The Board found a permanent partial disability and that the claimant did not voluntarily remove himself from the labor market. However, the Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to support lost wages causally related to the 1965 accident or disability after retirement, noting the claimant's wage loss was due to economic conditions, union regulations, and social security limitations. The court concluded that the claimant withdrew from the labor market and did not seek employment that would interfere with retirement benefits. Therefore, the court reversed the board's decision and dismissed the claim, emphasizing that the Workmen’s Compensation Law is not intended to supplement retirement benefits without a direct link between disability and wage loss.

Permanent partial disabilityLost wagesRetirement benefitsVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketUnion regulationsSocial security limitationsCausation of wage lossSufficiency of evidenceWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

Griffin v. Town of Dewitt

Claimant, a heavy truck mechanic, sustained a back injury requiring surgery in 2009. Despite returning to work without restrictions, he felt unable to perform his duties and retired in 2010, subsequently seeking lost time benefits. The employer and its third-party administrator argued that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a permanent partial disability but denied benefits due to voluntary withdrawal. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding an involuntary retirement and awarding continuing benefits. The employer and administrator appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant's disability significantly contributed to his decision to retire and his ongoing wage loss, supported by his testimony and medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationInvoluntary RetirementPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Time BenefitsLabor Market WithdrawalBack InjuryDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionSocial Security Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. State Insurance Fund

The petitioner, injured in a work-related automobile accident, settled a third-party action for $125,000. Her employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier, the respondent, had paid substantial benefits for lost wages and medical expenses. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the respondent was not entitled to any lien on the settlement proceeds. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, holding that workers' compensation benefits paid in excess of the $1,000 per month maximum no-fault benefit for lost wages are subject to a workers' compensation lien. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for the calculation of the respondent's lien.

Workers' Compensation LienNo-Fault BenefitsThird-Party SettlementStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawLost WagesDouble RecoveryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawSupreme Court Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Palermo v. Primo Coat Corp.

The claimant, a seamstress, sustained a work-related right knee injury in 2000 and later had her claim amended to include other ailments, though a consequential left elbow injury remained unresolved. She was permanently disqualified from lost wage benefits in 2005 due to fraudulently collecting workers' compensation benefits, but her medical expenses continued. In 2008, the employer and its carrier sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, which the Workers' Compensation Board granted. The Special Fund appealed, arguing the case was not truly closed due to the unresolved left elbow injury. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that even with outstanding issues related to medical expenses, the case was considered truly closed for compensation purposes as the claimant was disqualified from lost wage benefits.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLost Wage BenefitsMedical ExpensesCase ClosureFraudulent CollectionPetit LarcenyLiability ShiftWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,963 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