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. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. 533901
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Gambardella

In this workers' compensation appeal, claimant Vincent Gambardella challenged a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. Gambardella, a bus maintainer, sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2018. A WCLJ initially established permanent partial disability and schedule loss of use (SLU) awards, finding a 35% SLU of his left arm, 15.80% SLU of his right third finger, and a nonschedule permanent impairment of his lower back. Due to his voluntary retirement in April 2020, he was deemed ineligible for a nonschedule award but was granted an SLU award by the WCLJ. The Board reversed, asserting that SLU awards were only for claimants who returned to pre-injury wages. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that an SLU award is appropriate when no initial award is made based on a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification, regardless of whether the claimant returned to work or voluntarily retired. The court found that voluntary retirement, like returning to work at preinjury wages, precludes a nonschedule award, thus making the claimant eligible for an SLU award for his permanent impairments. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementWage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRemittalDuplicative CompensationLabor Market AttachmentImpairment Rating
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2004

Claim of Disarno v. Mattel/Fisher Price, Inc.

A maintenance mechanic sustained a work-related lower back injury in September 1997. Despite returning to work with medical restrictions, he chose to take an early retirement incentive in May 1998, immediately securing a less physically demanding job. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant's injury and medical restrictions motivated his retirement to pursue alternative, lighter-duty employment.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementWork-Related InjuryMedical RestrictionsLight DutyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealSubstantial EvidenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. ADJ7486214
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

CYNTHIA JOHNSON vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA/UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves a dispute over permanent disability indemnity payments for an applicant who sustained an industrial back injury. The defendant sought a decrease in payments under Labor Code section 4658(d) for offering the applicant work, but the Board found this section inapplicable due to changed circumstances and the purpose of return-to-work incentives. The Board also removed a 10% penalty for late payment under section 4650(d), acknowledging a good faith dispute over the indemnity rate. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original award but amended findings regarding the penalty and attorney's fees.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONADJ7486214INDUSTRIAL INJURYPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTLABOR CODE SECTION 4658LABOR CODE SECTION 4650(d)RETURN-TO-WORK INCENTIVESFINDINGS AND AWARD
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

Claim of Amicola v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, an employee of New York Telephone, sustained a low back injury in December 1992 and underwent disc repair surgery. After returning to light duty, he experienced increased back pain, and despite his physician's direction to stop working, he applied for an early retirement incentive program in May 1994, which was granted the following month. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market due to his early retirement. The Court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support that the claimant elected to retire, influenced by a significant financial incentive, despite his injury. The decision emphasized that the availability of workers' compensation benefits would not cease with retirement, further supporting the voluntary nature of his withdrawal.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementDisabilityBack InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFinancial Incentive
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,858 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