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

Mangum v. National Union Fire Insurance

A claimant was injured in July 2000 and filed for workers' compensation after her disability claim was denied. The Workers' Compensation Board initially indexed the claim against Career Horizons, Inc., with AIG Claims Services, Inc. as its administrator. AIG failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to the claim's establishment and penalties. After an initial appeal by AIG, the Board affirmed the establishment but remitted the case to identify the proper carrier. CNA Insurance Company was subsequently identified as the employer's true workers' compensation carrier. The WCLJ and the Board ruled that AIG was estopped by laches from denying coverage. This court, however, reversed the Board's finding of estoppel, concluding that the Board abused its discretion by not addressing evidence suggesting CNA had timely notice of the claim and basing its decision on incorrect employer/carrier identification. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelLachesInsurance CoverageCarrier LiabilityThird-Party AdministratorAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural Due ProcessTimely Notice
References
9
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. ADJ1513511
Regular
Sep 21, 2015

RIZALINA DERRO vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER, TERRACE VIEW CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, COVENANT CARE, SOUTH GATE CARE CENTER, BROADSPIRE, SUN HEALTH CARE, AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found Sun Health Care/Regency and CNA Claims Plus liable for the applicant's left wrist injury. The applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her left wrist during the period of 11-1-1995 to 11-1-1996, while employed by both Covenant Care (insured by AIG) and Sun Health Care (insured by CNA). A previous Compromise and Release barred claims against Covenant Care and AIG, leaving Sun Health Care and CNA liable. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which relied on medical evidence and legal precedent to uphold the finding of industrial injury and liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaLeft Wrist InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCompromise and ReleaseApportionmentDate of InjuryMedical Probability
References
0
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. AIG Life Insurance

Plaintiff Farecilpa Lugo sued AIG Life Insurance Company and Hobart Corporation, seeking accidental death benefits under ERISA after her husband's death in 1984. AIG denied claims, citing late notice and the cause of death. Lugo argued that notice to PMI (Hobart) was sufficient, AIG waived the late notice defense, and her claim was within ERISA's statute of limitations. The court found AIG did not waive its late notice defense due to a reservation of rights clause, Lugo failed to prove PMI was AIG's agent, and the Plans' three-year limitation period, not ERISA's six-year period, applied, barring the suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the action, rendering the request for a jury trial moot.

ERISAAccidental Death BenefitsInsurance PolicyLate Notice DefenseWaiverEstoppelStatute of LimitationsAgencySummary JudgmentFederal Common Law
References
37
Case No. ADJ3591939 (LAO 07459514)
Regular
Jan 09, 2009

JUANA VENEGAS vs. X-CHANGE PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE, in liquidation, by BROADSPIRE, MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, INC.

AIG Claims Services, Inc. (AIG) appeals the WCJ's October 20, 2008 determination that the issue of applicant's alleged special employment by Merle Norman Cosmetics must be submitted to arbitration. The Appeals Board dismisses the petition for reconsideration, grants the petition for removal, and rescinds the submission to arbitration.

Special employmentCIGAcovered claimsarbitrationremovalreconsiderationinterim orderfinal orderprejudiceLabor Code section 5275(a)
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AIG Europe (Netherlands), N v. v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff AIG Europe (Netherlands), N.V. ("AIG") initiated a subrogation action against Defendant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("UPS") following damage to an x-ray machine during shipment. AIG, acting as the insurer for Philips Medical Systems Nederlands, B.V., asserted claims for breach of contract, bailment obligations, and tort. UPS sought summary judgment to limit its liability to $9,479.61, while AIG cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing against the enforceability of any liability limitation and its invalidity under the Carmack Amendment. The Court denied both motions for summary judgment on the contractual liability issues, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence and terms of a binding agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the applicability of the Carmack Amendment and the material deviation doctrine could not be determined as a matter of law. However, UPS's motion for summary judgment on AIG's tort claim was granted as it was unopposed.

SubrogationContract LawBailmentTort LawSummary JudgmentCarmack AmendmentInterstate CommerceLimitation of LiabilityShipping DamageX-ray Machine
References
50
Case No. ADJ244571 (VEN 0110022) ADJ3315572 (VEN 0110023) ADJ3817980 (OXN 0145232) ADJ2004405 (OXN 0145234) ADJ4239471 (OXN 0145235)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

DIANA HARDMAN vs. COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC./CHARTIS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, BROADSPIRE, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, American Home Assurance

This case involves five workers' compensation claims by applicant Diana Hardman against Community Memorial Hospital, with American Home Assurance (AIG) as a defendant insurer. AIG seeks reconsideration of the WCJ's findings, arguing it should only be liable for permanent disability directly arising from injuries covered by its policies, not those covered by insolvent insurers now handled by CIGA. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decisions, and returned the matter for further proceedings. Key issues include the admissibility of a deposition, the apportionment of permanent disability based on recent appellate decisions, and clarification of liability for injuries that occurred during periods covered by multiple insurers, including insolvent ones.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiana HardmanCommunity Memorial HospitalAIG Domestic ClaimsCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationBroads PireCalifornia Compensation Insurance CompanyFremont Compensation Insurance CompanyOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 17,708 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