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
May 05, 2014

Matter of Galuski v. New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs

Claimant suffered a work-related back injury and utilized leave credits for her absence, during which she received full wages. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits and directed the employer's insurance carrier to reimburse the employer for wages paid. While the carrier timely reimbursed the employer, the employer delayed restoring the claimant's accrued leave credits for nearly a year. The claimant sought to impose a penalty on the employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) for this delay. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board declined the penalty. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the cited Workers’ Compensation Law provision for penalties applies when there is a failure to make compensation payments according to the award's terms, and the initial award did not include an obligation for the employer to timely restore leave time to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationLeave CreditsPenaltyReimbursementTimelinessBack InjuryWCLJ DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f)
References
1
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Groth v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

This legal motion pertained to a request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division had previously denied reargument in the underlying case. The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, reasoning that the Appellate Division's order did not constitute a final determination as defined by the Constitution. Separate from this, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were also denied.

References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1989

Claim of Moses v. City of New York Department of Traffic

On December 17, 1981, a claimant sustained a compensable injury while employed by the City of New York Department of Traffic. The employer paid the claimant for lost time and later sought reimbursement under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4). The claimant, who was on an extended leave of absence and serving as a union president, requested direct payment for the lost time, arguing she was no longer an employee. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied direct payment. The Board's decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal, reasoned that the claimant could still utilize her credited leave time upon returning to work or be compensated for it upon resignation.

Workers' CompensationLeave of AbsenceReimbursementDirect PaymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccrued Leave TimeWage ReimbursementUnion PresidentCompensable InjuryAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zachari

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The decision included an award of $10 costs. Justices Breitel, Rabin, Valente, Eager, and Steuer concurred with the decision.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedJudicial Concurrence
References
0
Case No. ADJ9126761
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

Jennifer James vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Jennifer James, a police officer injured on duty, who sought additional benefits under Labor Code Section 4850. The core dispute is whether Section 4850 benefits, providing a leave of absence without loss of salary for up to one year, should be paid for a calendar year or until the equivalent of a full year's salary has been received. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, ruling that the one-year limitation is based on the duration of payments, not the total salary amount. A dissenting opinion argued that the intent of Section 4850 is to ensure no loss of salary, thus allowing benefits to continue until the equivalent of a full year's salary is paid, especially for injured public safety officers.

Labor Code section 4850temporary partial disabilitymodified dutiespolice officerwage loss benefitssalary continuationaggregate disability paymentsEason v. City of RiversideKosowski v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.County of Alameda v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duralite Co. v. Local 222, Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, with an imposition of $10 costs. The decision was concurred by Justice Presiding Breitel, along with Justices Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente, and McNally.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedConcurring JusticesAppellate DivisionDenial of Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jefferson v. Bronx Psychiatric Center

Claimant, an employee of the State of New York at the Bronx Psychiatric Center, sustained an injury and was disabled for 19 days. During this period, the employer paid full wages, charging the time against her accrued sick leave. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision denying the employer reimbursement for the first 10 days of paid sick leave, as the sick leave was not restored to the claimant. The employer appealed, arguing its entitlement to reimbursement. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that payments made under statutory or collective bargaining agreement compulsion, where sick leave credits with monetary value are not restored, do not constitute advance payments for which reimbursement is due under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25(4)(a).

ReimbursementSick LeaveWorkers' Compensation LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdvance PaymentsState EmployeesDisability BenefitsEmployer ObligationCompulsory PaymentsVested Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,577 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