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 Finocchio v. W. A. White Underwear Corp.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, sustained an injury in 1955 and was later found to have a permanent partial disability in 1963. In 1974, her employer ceased operations, leading to an inability to find new work. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits for reduced earnings, determining she remained in the labor market. The employer appealed, arguing that the reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient proof that the claimant’s disability contributed to her reduced earnings after her employer went out of business, and remitted the case for further findings on the cause of the reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsEconomic ConditionsCausationBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1999

Soto v. Alert No. 1 Alarm Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning indemnification claims arising from a personal injury incident. Waldo Soto, an employee of Gracie Square River Corp., was injured by an automatic gate. He and his wife sued Alert No. 1 Alarm Systems, Inc., which had a contract with Gracie Square. Alert then initiated a third-party action against Gracie Square for common-law and contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing Alert's common-law indemnification claim due to Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and denying Alert's cross-motion for conditional summary judgment on contractual indemnification, citing unresolved factual issues.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryThird-Party ActionAppellate DecisionContractual Obligation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Pietra v. County of Suffolk

The claimant, a licensed practical nurse, sustained an injury in 1989 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, receiving workers' compensation benefits for reduced earnings. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that her reduced earnings were not causally related to her disability, primarily citing her current employment in Tennessee at what it inferred was a lower pay scale and fewer hours. The appellate court found that the Board failed to adequately explain its ruling and did not sufficiently consider all factors. Specifically, the court noted the absence of evidence comparing pay scales between New York and Tennessee, and the Board's failure to account for the claimant working fewer hours in Tennessee without determining if this reduction was self-imposed or unrelated to her disability. The court concluded there was insufficient support for the Board's finding that reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions unrelated to the disability, thereby reversing the decision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsCausationEconomic ConditionsRemittalAppellate ReviewNew YorkLPNWage Loss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2002

Millner v. Cablevision

Claimant, a freelance news reporter, suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident on November 15, 1996, leading to a workers\' compensation claim and initial reduced earnings benefits from December 23, 1996. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded these awards for any period after February 1, 2000, determining that the reduction in claimant\'s work hours was not causally linked to her disability. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board\'s ruling, citing substantial evidence that the claimant\'s reduced work schedule stemmed from economic conditions in the job market rather than her disability, despite medical advice regarding work limitations. The court found no reason to disturb the Board\'s factual findings.

Workers\' CompensationReduced EarningsCausally Related DisabilityEconomic FactorsFreelance ReporterMotor Vehicle AccidentChiropractorMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1977

Orbinati v. Utica Mutual Insurance

A claimant, employed as a physical education teacher and track/football coach by the Utica City School District, sustained an injury in August 1970. His average weekly wage was calculated to include his coaching stipend. Following his injury, he returned to his teaching role with restrictions that prevented him from coaching. Despite subsequent salary increments resulting in a higher overall salary than his pre-injury average weekly wage, the claimant contended he was experiencing reduced earnings due to the loss of his coaching allowance. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the referee affirmed there were no reduced earnings, concluding that his teaching and coaching constituted a single, integrated employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationDual EmploymentSingle EmploymentCoaching StipendUtica City School DistrictWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DecisionInjury in Course of Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gioia v. Cattaraugus County Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's reduced earnings award. The claimant, a nurse's aide with a permanent partial disability from a back injury, had her weekly compensation rate adjusted by the Board to be based on her actual reduced earnings from her current job, rather than her degree of disability. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed, arguing that the Board should have considered the claimant's capacity to earn more. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for claimants demonstrating labor market attachment, wage-earning capacity must be determined exclusively by actual earnings during disability, as evidence of capacity to earn more or less, including medical evidence of disability degree, is prohibited.

reduced earnings awardpermanent partial disabilitywage earning capacitylabor market attachmentactual earningsworkers' compensation lawappeal decisionjudicial reviewindependent medical examinationemployer appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Delee v. Crouse Hinds Division of Cooper Industries

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991, resulting in a permanent partial disability and workers' compensation benefits. After being terminated and later finding new employment, she developed breast cancer, leading to neuropathy and cardiomyopathy from chemotherapy, preventing her return to work. The employer's carrier argued her current inability to work was solely due to cancer, not the back injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision, continuing claimant's reduced earnings award. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that supervening nonindustrial causes do not absolve an employer if the established permanent partial disability still contributes to reduced earning capacity, which is a factual determination for the Board, supported by substantial evidence in this case.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsSupervening Nonindustrial CausesCausationAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionBack InjuryChemotherapy ComplicationsBoard Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Virtuoso v. Chevrolet

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury and later lost employment with his employer due to a disagreement, not his injury. He subsequently received unemployment benefits and performed work for his wife's business. Despite claiming a worsening back condition limited his work ability, he was evasive about his income from these subsequent employments. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for reduced earnings, finding no causal link between his lost employment income and his back condition, and noting his failure to provide income details. This appeal affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no evidence to warrant a reduced earnings award.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsWork-related InjuryCausationLoss of EmploymentIncome EvasionUnemployment BenefitsBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Plaza Mission Bottling Co., Inc.

Andrew Schnier, the trustee in a bankruptcy case, filed a motion seeking to reduce claims by the Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812 BT. The trustee argued that the bankrupt entity, Plaza Mission Bottling Co., Inc., was not bound by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by its predecessor, Plaza Beverage Company. The court conferred successor status upon the bankrupt, finding substantial continuity in the business enterprise, workforce, and equipment. Crucially, the court determined that the bankrupt had implicitly assumed the collective bargaining agreement through the statements and actions of its president, who continued to honor its terms. Therefore, the court denied the trustee's motion, concluding that the bankrupt was legally bound to the substantive provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

Bankruptcy ActSuccessor EmployerCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActAlter Ego DoctrineUnion ClaimsUnpaid WagesSick PayVacation Pay
References
20
Case No. 09-cv-4229
Regular Panel Decision

Serby v. First Alert, Inc.

Plaintiff Victor M. Serby, an attorney proceeding pro se, brought this action against First Alert, Inc. and BRK Brands, Inc. for breach of a pre-existing settlement agreement. Serby alleged the Defendants failed to pay royalties for smoke detectors incorporating his '434 Patent, stemming from a prior patent infringement litigation. Defendants countered that their new SA340 model smoke alarm did not meet the 'unopenable' condition of the settlement agreement, thus absolving them of royalty payments. Serby moved for summary judgment and to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses, arguing that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred these defenses due to the previous litigation and settlement. The Court denied Serby's motion in its entirety, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the similarity of the smoke alarm models and that neither res judicata, collateral estoppel, nor contractual estoppel applied. Furthermore, the Court determined that the heightened pleading standards of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly do not extend to affirmative defenses.

Patent InfringementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelContractual EstoppelPleading StandardsSmoke DetectorsRoyalties'434 Patent
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 794 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