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

Matter of Paez v. Lackman Culinary Services

Claimant, an immigrant, injured his lower back while working as a food service worker in 2010. His workers' compensation claim was established, leading to surgery in 2012 for a herniated disc. Despite surgery, he continued to experience pain and was unable to return to his job. A WCLJ determined he had a permanent partial disability and an 80% loss of wage-earning capacity, which was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Claimant appealed, arguing the Board failed to consider total industrial disability, an issue he had raised before the WCLJ. The appellate court found that the Board did err by not addressing the total industrial disability claim and remitted the matter for further proceedings, as total industrial disability can have a more favorable outcome than loss of wage-earning capacity.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityTotal Industrial DisabilityLumbar DiscectomyLaminectomyMedical ExaminationRemittalAppellate ReviewBack InjuryFood Service Worker
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. CV-24-1104
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Matter of Foster v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Claimant Vincent Foster, a youth division aide, sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2015 and 2019. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision classifying his permanent impairments as a nonschedule permanent partial disability with a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity, but denied wage loss benefits due to his continued pre-injury wages. This classification was based on the medical opinion of Dr. Shanker Krishnamurthy, who found a nonschedule classification more appropriate given the difficulty in reconciling schedule loss of use awards with the claimant's continued ability to work full-time despite chronic function loss. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's discretion in resolving conflicting medical opinions and assessing credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ)Permanent Partial Disability (PPD)Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Nonschedule ClassificationWage-Earning CapacityMedical Examiner DisagreementApportionment of InjuriesImpairment GuidelinesAppellate Division ReviewYouth Division Aide Injury
References
6
Case No. CV-24-1104
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Foster

Claimant sustained multiple work-related injuries in 2015 and 2019 while working for the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. His workers' compensation claims were established, and physicians disagreed on whether his permanent impairments were amenable to a nonschedule classification or a schedule loss of use award. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity and classified him with a permanent partial disability, but denied wage loss benefits due to continued pre-injury wages. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, crediting the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Shanker Krishnamurthy, who argued that a nonschedule classification was more appropriate given claimant's continued ability to work full-time despite chronic loss of function in multiple extremities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseNonschedule ClassificationAppellate ReviewMedical Opinion ConflictWage-Earning CapacityThird Judicial DepartmentOrthopedic SurgeonSubstantial EvidenceClaimant Appeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reasoner v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

This appellate decision addresses whether the Workers' Compensation Board correctly calculated the claimant's average weekly wage. The employer and carrier argued that due to the claimant's limited employment as an MVRSAB member, the compensation rate should be based on actual earnings, not the 200 multiple outlined in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board determined that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) nor (2) was applicable, thus applying Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). It also found no evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited participation in the labor market, based on testimony of availability and continued business operation. The court affirmed the Board's calculation.

average weekly wageworkers' compensation lawcompensation rateemployment limitationlabor marketstatutory interpretationappellate reviewMVRSAB member
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involved a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by an employer association to challenge a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The IBA had confirmed a minimum wage order from the Commissioner of Labor, which increased the cash wage for food service workers. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner lacked authority to set a wage lower than legislatively mandated and was constrained in considering other factors. The court converted the proceeding to a direct appeal and affirmed the IBA's determination, concluding that Labor Law § 655 (5) prohibits setting a cash wage less than that specified in Labor Law § 652 (4). The court found the petitioner's arguments without merit.

Minimum WageFood Service WorkersLabor Law InterpretationStatutory AuthorityWage Board ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborCPLR Article 78 ConversionJudicial Review of Agency ActionEmployer Association Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Alund v. Malt River Brewing Co.

Claimant was injured on October 28, 1999, and her workers' compensation claim was established with a tentative average weekly wage of $170.49. This wage was later permanently established by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) on July 26, 2001, but the WCLJ then reversed the decision, making it "without prejudice." The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the WCLJ improperly rescinded the permanent wage determination and referred the matter back. Claimant appealed this Board decision. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued another decision on November 3, 2003, closing the claimant's case due to a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market prior to the initial case establishment. Given this subsequent decision, which effectively rescinded the September 2003 decision under appeal, and the claimant's failure to appeal the November 2003 decision, the issue of her average weekly wage was deemed moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageMootnessAppealBoard DecisionVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketRescissionJudicial ReviewProcedural Issue
References
4
Case No. ADJ2292703 (LAO 0888546)
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

JOHNNY McLAURIN vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Award, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the WCJ erred by relying on the treating physician's report without ensuring it was based on substantial evidence, as it did not review all relevant records. Additionally, the Board found that the issue of temporary disability and attorney's fees was improperly awarded without considering the applicant's wage continuation payments. The matter is remanded for the treating physician to review all evidence and for further proceedings regarding compensability and potential credit for wage continuation.

Cumulative traumaAOE/COEFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code sections 4060(c)4062.2substantial medical evidencetemporary total disabilityattorney's feeswage loss
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,502 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