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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ8608456 MF\nADJ8608504\nADJ8523009\nADJ8551858\nADJ8609068
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

HORACIO CABRERA, Deceased MARIBEL BARAJAS, Widow, Guardian Ad\nLitem for LITZY CABRERA, LESLY\nCABRERA, MARIA CABRERA AND\nKASSANDRA CABRERA; BRIANNA\nCABRERA, for herself and Guardian Ad Litem for STEFANI ARIAS, ANTONIO SOLARES, MODESTO DOMINGUEZ, JOHNATHAN ALONSO vs. MV CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of a ruling finding a fatal motor vehicle accident and related injuries industrial. The employer argued the administrative law judge erred in admitting evidence and presuming compensability due to a failure to issue timely denial notices. The employer also contended the "going and coming rule" barred the claims as the accident occurred during a standard commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings that the injuries were industrial and not barred by the going and coming rule, largely adopting the judge's reasoning.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionRulings and Order Admitting EvidenceFindings of FactMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuriesFatal Industrial InjuryDependentsNotice of Denial
References
0
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. ADJ9346293
En Banc
Jan 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to hold that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 10133.54 is invalid. The WCAB reasoned that the rule exceeds the AD's statutory authority and improperly restricts the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over supplemental job displacement benefits (SJDB). The board also intends to affirm its prior decision that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to an injured employee to be exempt from providing an SJDB voucher.

AD Rule 10133.54Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitBona Fide OfferExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative DirectorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInmate LaborerStatutory AuthorityEn Banc DecisionReconsideration
References
31
Case No. ADJ8543406
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. ALBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's denial of sanctions for delayed payment of interpreter services. The Board found that the interpreter services for the Compromise and Release were reasonable and necessary under AD Rule 9795.3. Defendant received the invoice on February 24, 2016, but did not pay it until August 2, 2017, exceeding the 60-day payment requirement of AD Rule 9795.4. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the matter for further proceedings on the petitions for costs and sanctions.

WCABJoyce Altman InterpretersAD Rule 9795.4AD Rule 9795.3Labor Code Section 5813Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCompromise and ReleaseInterpreter ServicesClaims Administrator
References
8
Case No. ADJ7785936
Regular
Feb 28, 2014

LISA VALDEZ vs. SAINT HELENA HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior order denying a lien claimant's fee, allowing payment for a psychiatric consultation. The Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Dr. Burt reasonably requested the consultation with Dr. Goldfield under former AD Rule 32, which permitted PQMEs to obtain necessary consultations. The defendant failed to investigate the potential psychiatric component of the applicant's industrial injury as required by AD Rule 10109, despite being notified by the PQME. Therefore, the Board found that Dr. Goldfield should be compensated for services rendered in the interest of substantial justice.

AD Rule 32Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)psychiatric consultationlien claimantindustrial injuryregistered nursepermanent disabilityfuture medical treatmentreconsiderationsubstantial justice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of J.

The case concerns an adoption proceeding initiated by a same-sex couple. The court addresses whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for the adoptive infant, a practice previously common in same-sex adoptions due to their novelty. Citing Matter of Dana, which affirmed the legality of same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couple adoptions, the court found no legal basis to treat same-sex adoptions differently from those by married couples, where a guardian ad litem is not automatically appointed if statutory requirements and social worker reports are favorable. The court concluded that denying equal treatment could violate federal and state equal protection clauses, deciding against appointing a guardian ad litem unless special circumstances are present.

AdoptionSame-sex coupleGuardian ad litemBest interest of childEqual protectionDomestic Relations LawStatutory interpretationCourt of AppealsSurrogate's CourtFamily Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. City of New York

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) promulgated "Health Care Rules" to deduct six cents per fare from taxi drivers for health care services and disability coverage. Petitioners, including taxi drivers, challenged these rules, arguing they were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court annulled the rules but initially denied restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the annulment, finding the TLC exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in establishing the deductions. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the petitioners' request for restitution of the improperly deducted funds.

New York City Taxi and Limousine CommissionHealth Care RulesUltra ViresSeparation of PowersArbitrary and CapriciousRestitutionTaxi DriversDisability CoverageRegulatory AuthorityAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 6,854 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