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. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Deceased) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ7122712, ADJ7122713
Regular
Dec 18, 2013

OFELIA INIGUEZ vs. FOSTER FARMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release agreement for $25,000, which awarded applicant's attorney a 15% fee instead of the requested 20%. The Board found the attorney's petition for reconsideration to be frivolous and meritless, lacking proper legal justification for an increased fee. Furthermore, the attorney failed to comply with procedural rules, including not providing proof of notice to her client regarding adverse interests and improperly attaching exhibits. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the attorney for bad faith actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeeCompromise and Release AgreementAdequacy HearingSanctionLabor Code section 5813Policy and Procedure ManualQuantum MeruitAdverse Interest Notice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. ADJ4194347 (SRO 135724), ADJ8065537
Regular
Aug 20, 2012

JONATHAN GREEN vs. T.J. and DENI MARRONE, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant's attorney seeking an increased attorney's fee beyond what was awarded by the WCJ. The applicant's attorney is requesting a higher fee than the $11,819.24 total previously allowed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to provide the applicant's attorney an opportunity to comply with Rule 10778, which requires notice to the applicant of the attorney's adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. The Board will affirm the WCJ's decision unless proof of service, applicant's consent, or a verified explanation is provided within twenty days.

Petition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeeCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of IntentionRule 10778Adverse InterestIndependent CounselVerified Explanation
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Ehrlich

The court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, subsequently granting the motion. The examination sought information regarding $2,700 in U.S. Bonds and a $1,000 insurance policy, both payable or assigned to the executrix individually. The court found that the objectant had no legal interest in these assets as they were payable to a stated beneficiary and individually assigned to the executrix. Furthermore, the objectant was not a creditor, precluding examination under the Debtor and Creditor Law. Therefore, it was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination given the objectant's lack of a possible legal interest.

Motion to vacateNotice of examination before trialU.S. Bonds Series EInsurance policyDecedent's estateExecutrixObjectantDebtor and Creditor LawLegal interestDiscretionary power
References
1
Case No. ADJ6780051
Regular
Sep 03, 2010

WILLIAN DUARTE, Deceased, JANET ARCE, as Guardian Ad Litem for GISSELLE J. DUARTE, BYRON E. DUARTE and NAOMI E. DUARTE, Minor Dependents vs. ADLR TRANSPORTATION, INC., Illegally Uninsured, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award due to lack of proper joinder and due process for Fatima Hernandez. The Board found that Hernandez, though appearing for the employer ADLR Transportation, Inc. and stipulated to the Board's jurisdiction, was never formally joined as a defendant. Awarding benefits against her individually or as a shareholder without proper notice would violate her due process rights. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure all defendants are properly joined. The attorney's fee was not increased due to a lack of notice to clients regarding adverse interests.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIllegally UninsuredUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundDeath BenefitsGuardian Ad LitemPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAttorney's FeeTruck DriverOwner and Sole Shareholder
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Haberle

This appeal concerns whether Ulster County's failure to notify a mortgagee, Dorothy H. Bowden, of an impending tax sale deprived her of due process, thereby nullifying the tax sale as to her interest. The plaintiff acquired tax-delinquent property from Ulster County, which had purchased it after the record owner, Sharon Haberle, failed to pay taxes. Bowden, a mortgagee of the property, was not served with notice of the tax sale or the redemption period. The court found that the lack of notice to Bowden substantially impaired her property interest and violated her due process rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment against Bowden was reversed, the tax sale and conveyance affecting her mortgage interest were annulled, and her mortgage was reinstated.

Due ProcessTax SaleMortgagee RightsNotice RequirementsReal PropertySummary JudgmentAnnulmentMortgage ReinstatementTax DelinquencyProperty Interest
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re United States Lines, Inc.

The United States Lines, Inc. and its Reorganization Trust (Debtors) moved to deny a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest filed by the Public Administrator of the County of New York, Administrator of the Estate of Alfredo Valverde (Claimant). The Claimant's original wrongful death action against U.S.L. resulted in a state court judgment after the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Cornelius Blackshear, found that the doctrines of full faith and credit, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were inapplicable, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over the claims allowance process in bankruptcy. Applying Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court disallowed all post-petition interest, whether pre- or post-judgment, classifying it as unmatured interest. However, the court allowed the portion of the claim representing pre-petition, pre-judgment interest, clarifying that the date of judgment entry does not determine whether interest is 'unmatured' as of the petition date. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the existence of indemnity insurance from the UK Club altered the allowability of the interest claim against the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawInterest on ClaimsPostpetition InterestPrepetition InterestUnmatured InterestChapter 11 ReorganizationClaims AllowanceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAutomatic Stay
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 4,983 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