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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Case No. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
0
Case No. 2007-3856
Regular Panel Decision

FERNANDO GARCIA v. MVT Services, Inc.

The case involves Jesus Fernando Garcia and Maria de Lourdes Garcia (Plaintiffs) suing MVT Services, Inc. (Defendant) and other entities for the wrongful death of their son. The Plaintiffs initially filed in Texas state court, but the case was removed to federal court by MVT Services. The core issue is the timeliness of the removal by MVT Services. The Court found that MVT Services received "other paper" (a settlement agreement with the non-diverse defendant in October 2007 and a demand letter for $750,000) that made the case removable much earlier than its May 2008 removal. Consequently, the Defendant's removal was deemed untimely, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand was granted, returning the case to state court. The request for attorneys' fees was denied.

Motion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyNon-diverse PartiesVoluntary Act of PlaintiffOther Paper RuleFederal Question JurisdictionState Court ActionWrongful Death
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barber v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, who sustained a work-related injury in 1994, was awarded benefits for a moderate partial disability. A Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed in March 2006, finding insufficient medical evidence for total disability, but allowed reopening for additional evidence. After a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge modified the award in July 2006 for certain periods, the claimant sought reconsideration of the Board's March 2006 decision to increase the disability rate for an earlier period, which the Board denied in January 2007. The current appeal challenged the denial of reconsideration. The court affirmed the denial, stating that the merits of the March 2006 decision were not reviewable due to the claimant's failure to appeal it directly, and found no abuse of discretion or arbitrary action by the Board in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityTotal DisabilityReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re General Motors Corp.

This original proceeding addresses whether a district court's 2007 order, which vacated a 2003 dismissal for want of prosecution (DWOP) of an abated lawsuit, was void due to the expiration of the court's plenary power. Relators, General Motors Corporation and Munday Chevrolet, sought a writ of mandamus arguing the 2007 order was invalid. The underlying suit, filed by Respondent Landmark, was inadvertently dismissed for DWOP in 2003 while abated for administrative proceedings, and Landmark received no notice. Four years later, in 2007, the district court vacated its dismissal, citing voidness due to the abatement. However, the appellate court ruled that the district court had the jurisdictional power to issue the 2003 dismissal, even if erroneous, and its plenary power expired, making the 2007 vacating order void. The writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, directing the district court to vacate its 2007 order.

MandamusPlenary PowerDismissal for Want of ProsecutionAbatementSubject-Matter JurisdictionVoid OrderTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAdministrative ProceedingsMotor Vehicle BoardExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
51
Case No. 534485
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of William Grimaldi

Claimant William Grimaldi sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and 2008. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initially erred in calculating the payment rate for the 2007 claim, leading to a prior appeal where this Court remitted the matter for re-computation based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of the 2007 injury for awards made after December 23, 2013. In a May 2021 decision, the Board correctly applied the rate but limited its application to a specific period and reduced counsel fees. While claimant's subsequent appeal of this May 2021 decision was pending, the Board, on its own motion, reviewed and amended its decision in June 2022. The amended decision directed that all continuing awards for the 2007 claim be paid at the rate based on the 2007 earnings and granted the full requested counsel fees. As the Board's subsequent decision rendered the appeal moot, this Court dismissed the appeal and assessed costs against the Workers' Compensation Board for the expenses incurred by the claimant in perfecting an unnecessary appeal.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewMootnessWage Earning CapacityPayment RateAverage Weekly WageCounsel FeesBoard ReconsiderationCosts on AppealPermanent Partial Disability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MIA Acupuncture, P.C. v. Praetorian Insurance

This case involves a provider seeking assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. The court addressed three main issues: the timeliness of claim submission for services rendered in May 2007, the adequacy of a "fee schedule review" for services from May to August 2007, and the medical necessity of acupuncture services from August 29 to September 6, 2007, based on an independent medical examination. The court found an issue of fact regarding claim mailing for the May services and insufficient evidence for the fee schedule review. However, it granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the claim for services from August 29 to September 6, 2007, due to a lack of medical necessity established by the IME report.

No-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesSummary JudgmentMedical NecessityClaim TimelinessFee Schedule ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationInsurance Regulations
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 499 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