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 Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co.

This Per Curiam decision addresses appeals concerning whether employers and their carriers are entitled to credit for lump-sum settlements in reopened workers' compensation cases. The cases of Kenney v. Walsh Construction Co. and Yurivich v. Sans Souci Nursing Home both involve claimants who received lump-sum awards for partial disabilities but later experienced worsening conditions, leading to reopened cases and increased awards. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied credit to the carriers for the original lump-sum settlements, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court held that lump-sum settlements under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 15(5-b) cannot be indefinitely extended by excluding weeks where the claimant earned pre-injury wages. It affirmed that carriers assume the risk of reopened cases due to changed conditions, with no statutory or decisional basis for adjusting for claimant earnings during the period the lump-sum award covered.

Lump-sum settlementWorkmen's Compensation Law § 15(5-b)Credit for settlementReopened caseIncreased disabilityPost-disability earningsPre-disability earningsNonschedule adjustmentCaisson diseaseHerniated disc
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. 534882
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Lambert

Claimant Joseph Lambert, a token booth agent and bus driver, sustained work-related injuries in 2016, leading to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The award was initially to be paid weekly until August 2023. In March 2021, Lambert requested the remaining unpaid portion of his SLU award be paid in a lump sum. This request was granted by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose a timeframe limitation on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewEmployer AppealClaimant RequestLegislative IntentInjury Benefits
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07123 [211 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Lambert v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

The case involves Joseph Lambert, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for work-related repetitive use injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his right arm, left arm, and right leg, payable weekly. Subsequently, Lambert requested the remaining SLU award be paid in a lump sum, which the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, appealed this decision, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose time limitations on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Schedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityClaimant RightsEmployer AppealLegislative IntentPayment Timing
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Van Horn v. County of Cayuga

The case involves an appeal regarding a Workers' Compensation Board decision that directed a lump-sum payment for a claimant's schedule loss of use award to the left arm and leg. The claimant sustained work-related injuries as a highway superintendent for the County of Cayuga. The County and its carrier appealed, arguing that a lump-sum payment for schedule loss of use was contrary to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (u), which states that such awards shall run consecutively. The court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that WCL § 15 (3) pertains to the manner in which awards run, allowing claimants to receive full benefits, rather than dictating the method of payment. The court also cited precedent stating that schedule awards are not allocable to a particular period of disability and do not need to be paid periodically.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLump Sum AwardAppeal DecisionStatutory InterpretationConsecutive AwardsPayment MethodEmployer LiabilityNew York Workers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2015

Matter of Colasanti v. Con Edison

The claimant, a mechanic, had an established claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with a disablement date of November 10, 2005. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined a 20% schedule loss of use (SLU) to each hand. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) upheld the SLU but modified the award, ruling that the claimant was not entitled to concurrent indemnity awards for the same period because he had already received the maximum weekly benefit for another permanent partial disability. The claimant appealed this decision. The appellate court referenced recent amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b), which allow for SLU awards to be paid in a lump sum, not subject to maximum weekly disability rates. The court remitted the matter to the Board to calculate a lump-sum award for the claimant.

schedule loss of usepermanent partial disabilityworkers' compensation lawindemnity awardslump sum paymentcarpal tunnel syndromeoccupational diseasestatutory maximum awardconcurrent paymentsappeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2004

Claim of Lacroix v. Syracuse Executive Air Service, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its workers' compensation carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed December 28, 2004, which directed a claimant’s 75% schedule loss of use award for a left arm injury to be paid in a lump sum. The employer contended that schedule awards are compensation and should be paid periodically and commuted to present value under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15, 25, and 27. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that schedule awards are distinct from weekly compensation benefits, are not allocable to a specific period of disability, and therefore do not require periodic payment or commutation to present value. The court relied on established case law, including Matter of Lynch v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., to support its finding that schedule awards represent a dignitary loss or a cushion against future earning capacity, payable in a lump sum at the Board's discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentPeriodic PaymentsCommutationDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

Walczyk v. Lewis Tree Service, Inc.

Claimant, a tree service worker, sustained a back injury in 2005 and later bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 15% schedule loss of use for each hand due to carpel tunnel syndrome, leading to an award of $29,280. However, due to concurrent compensation for the back injury and the statutory weekly cap of $400, the Judge reduced the carpel tunnel award to $2,916, payable weekly. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, ruling that the claimant was entitled to the full $29,280 schedule loss of use award for the carpel tunnel syndrome, payable in a lump sum, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) as amended in 2009. The employer's carrier appealed, arguing this violated the maximum disability rate provisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the lump-sum payment was an authorized alternative and did not violate the statutory cap, and that prior precedent did not preclude such an award.

schedule loss of uselump sum awardpermanent partial disabilitycarpal tunnel syndromeconcurrent paymentsstatutory capWorkers' Compensation Boardappellate review2009 amendmentsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. ADJ2549830 (LAO 0657500)
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

ANTHONY WELCH vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of a WCJ award that included a $29,000 lump-sum attorney fee. The SIBTF argued this violated Labor Code section 5100.5, which prohibits commutation of SIBTF benefits for attorney fees. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the attorney's unilateral addition of the lump sum to stipulations unacceptable. The Board amended the award to provide the attorney a fee of 15% of each weekly indemnity payment, affirming the remainder of the award.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney FeesLabor Code Section 5100.5CommutationStipulations with Request for AwardUnilateral AlterationWCJ AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityLife Pension Indemnity
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 7,693 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