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. ADJ8717299
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

JOSEPH LOBB vs. JEFFREY D. HADDEN, JEFFREY D. HADDEN AND DOROTHY M. HADDEN DBA NAT PEST CONTROL AND FIREWOOK AKA NPC, DOROTHY M. HADDEN, NATURAL PEST CONTROLS FIREWOOD

This case involves an employer's objection, treated as a petition for reconsideration, to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded benefits to an employee. The employers claim they never received notice of the original WCJ's decision or subsequent Board actions, including the September 2, 2016 decision. The WCAB found that the employers were indeed deprived of due process due to improper service. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow the employers to file an answer and ensure a just decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessImproper NoticeOfficial Address RecordProof of ServiceDeclaration of ServiceToll StatuteActual NoticeWCJ DecisionAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlingford Australia General Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Carlingford Australia General Insurance Limited (plaintiff) and defendant reinsurers, including St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company, and CIGNA Corporation, along with broker Marsh & McLennan, Inc., concerning a worker's compensation reinsurance policy. The core issue revolves around whether the reinsurance was on an aggregate or per-occurrence basis. Defendants moved to amend their answers to introduce an affirmative defense and counterclaim for rescission, alleging the plaintiff concealed material facts about its premium arrangements with the insured (Courtaulds-Nilsen), which seemingly guaranteed the plaintiff a profit. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law such as Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Ocean Insurance Company and China Union Lines v. American Marine Underwriters, granted the reinsurers' motion to amend their answers, concluding that the arguments regarding the materiality of the non-disclosures address the merits and should be allowed to be tested.

Reinsurance DisputeWorker's Compensation InsuranceMotion to Amend PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCounterclaim for RescissionMaterial NondisclosureInsurance PremiumsUnderwriting PracticesBroker LiabilityContract Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Episode USA, Inc.

Episode USA, Inc., a debtor in chapter 11 bankruptcy, guaranteed a non-debtor affiliate's lease. The affiliate defaulted, leading the landlord, L.H. Charney Associates, to file a claim against Episode. Episode objected to the claim, seeking to cap the unsecured portion under § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code and expunge the administrative priority claim. The court sustained Episode's objection, ruling that the § 502(b)(6) cap applies to debtor-guarantors and that the administrative priority claim was not justified as Episode received no benefit from the lease. However, the court rejected Episode's argument for a reduction of the unsecured claim based on mitigation, citing New York law.

BankruptcyLease GuaranteeLandlord-Tenant LawClaim ObjectionSection 502(b)(6)Administrative Priority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionUnsecured ClaimsLease TerminationGuarantor Liability
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 1,894 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