20 C.F.R. § 702.285

Report of earnings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An employer, carrier or the Director (for those cases being paid from the Special Fund) may require an employee to whom it is paying compensation to submit a report on earnings from employment or self-employment. This report may not be required any more frequently than semi-annually. The report shall be made on a form prescribed by the Director and shall include all earnings from employment and self-employment and the periods for which the earnings apply. The employee must return the complete report on earnings even where he or she has no earnings to report.

(b) For these purposes the term “earnings” is defined as all monies received from any employment and includes but is not limited to wages, salaries, tips, sales commissions, fees for services provided, piecework and all revenue received from self-employment even if the business or enterprise operated at a loss of if the profits were reinvested.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1215-0160) [50 FR 400, Jan. 3, 1985]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2006–2006 · leading case: Delaware River Stevedores Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edward Difidelto Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 440 F.3d 615 (3rd Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Delaware River Stevedores Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edward Difidelto Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 440 F.3d 615 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “In support for his argument against forfeiture, DiFidelto relied on the regulation implementing section 908®, 20 C.F.R. § 702.285 (a), and the legislative history of section 908(j), as set forth in a House of Representatives Conference Report.”

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Briskie, 161 F. App'x 178 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “With respect to the merits of the issues presented, we reject Weeks Marine’s contention that the Board erred in deferring to the Director’s interpretation of the operative statutory phrase— specifically, a “disabled employee” under 33 U.”

DE River Stevedores v. DiFidelto (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “In support for his argument against forfeiture, DiFidelto relied on the regulation implementing section 908(j), 20 C.F.R. § 702.285 (a), and the legislative history of section 908(j), as set forth in a House of Representatives Conference Report.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.