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

Union Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds v. Employer-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds

A dispute arose between the Employer-Appointed Trustees and Union-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds concerning delinquent employer contributions. An arbitrator issued an award, which the Employer-Appointed Trustees sought to confirm and the Union-Appointed Trustees cross-moved to vacate. Judge Walker of the District Court reviewed the arbitration award, noting the arbitrator based his findings on prior judicial decisions rather than independently interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The Court determined that the arbitrator failed to apply the contract as bargained for by the parties, thus exceeding his authority. Consequently, the Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the dispute for proceedings consistent with its order.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust FundsDelinquent ContributionsRes JudicataManifest Disregard of LawScope of Judicial ReviewLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re SLM Corp. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a securities class action against SLM Corporation. Initially, Westchester Capital Management, Inc. was appointed, but its Article III standing was questioned following a Second Circuit ruling in W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, which clarified that investment advisors without a valid assignment of claims lack standing. The court denied Westchester Capital's subsequent motion to approve a post-appointment assignment, reasoning it would not cure the initial lack of standing and presented unique legal issues for the class. Consequently, the court considered other movants for lead plaintiff, ultimately appointing SLM Venture, a joint venture with the largest financial interest, finding it satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements under the PSLRA and Rule 23. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP was approved as lead counsel for SLM Venture.

Securities Class ActionLead PlaintiffArticle III StandingInvestment AdvisorAssignment of ClaimsPSLRARule 23Typicality RequirementAdequacy RequirementSecond Circuit Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1964

Beirne v. Habel

The court considered two orders. An order entered on February 14, 1964, was unanimously affirmed without costs. Another order entered on February 27, 1964, which denied a motion to vacate a prior order appointing a receiver, was unanimously modified. The modification was made on legal and factual grounds, and in the exercise of discretion, to terminate the receivership upon the plaintiffs-appellants paying the receiver $100 plus actual expenses, including bond premium. The initial appointment of the receiver was deemed justified due to the parties' agreement in open court. However, the litigation settled and was discontinued within a week of the appointment, and the receiver reportedly did not take possession, receive funds, or perform significant services beyond qualifying.

receivershipmotion to vacatesettlementdiscontinuanceappellate decisionjudicial discretioncourt ordersexpensesbond premiumagreement in court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eggleston

This case involves an appeal from an order entered May 29, 2002, which summarily dismissed a petition for the appointment of a guardian under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The petitioner, Commissioner of Social Services, sought a guardian for a 69-year-old respondent facing eviction and exhibiting inability to manage personal needs and property due to profound depression. The lower court dismissed the petition without a hearing and declined to appoint counsel for the respondent, despite recommendations from a court evaluator and the respondent's requests. The appellate court unanimously reversed the dismissal, reinstated the petition, and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of a hearing and the appointment of counsel to ensure due process and proper adjudication under Article 81. The court highlighted that Article 81 mandates evaluating specific incapacities to tailor guardianship powers and that a hearing is crucial for presenting evidence and ensuring fairness.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81IncapacityDue ProcessRight to CounselEvictionDepressionAppellate ReviewRemandPsychiatric Evaluation
References
2
Case No. ADJ3269128 (SAC 0315100)
Regular
Jan 29, 2010

STEFANIE KING vs. SIERRA FAMILY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order for further medical record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The Board also rescinded the WCJ's subsequent order appointing a physician, as the WCJ lacked authority to issue it while a petition for reconsideration was pending. Removal was granted on the Board's own motion to address the impropriety of the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinding and OrderCumulative PeriodIndustrial InjuryMononucleosisEpstein-Barr Syndrome
References
7
Case No. ADJ3206000 (LAO 0877236)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

JENNIFER HESTER vs. TECHNICOLOR, Permissibly Self-Insured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision limiting the defendant's payment for hip surgery to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, which the applicant's surgeon deemed insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the complex fee dispute, noting that while extraordinary circumstances existed regarding the surgeon's qualifications, the reasonableness of his requested fee was unproven. To resolve this, the Board ordered the appointment of an agreed physician to investigate the surgeon's usual fee and its reasonableness compared to others with similar expertise.

ReconsiderationFindings of FactAgreed PhysicianMedical TreatmentFee ScheduleExtraordinary CircumstancesUsual FeeHip ArthroscopyOsteoplastyChondroplasty
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Buffalo Board of Education & AFSCME Local 264

The Buffalo Board of Education (Board) appealed an arbitration award that found it violated a collective bargaining agreement by appointing an AFSCME Local 264 (Local 264) member to a promotional position instead of a Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association (PCTEA) member. The Supreme Court had granted Local 264's motion to intervene and vacated the arbitration award. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that Local 264 was not entitled to intervene as it was not a party to the agreement or arbitration. The court also determined that the arbitration award, which directed the Board to appoint the PCTEA member with back pay, did not violate strong public policy or the New York Constitution. The court confirmed the original arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementInterventionPublic PolicyCivil Service LawPromotional PreferenceEligible ListAppellate ReviewVacatur of AwardConfirmation of Award
References
3
Case No. ADJ9711633
Regular
Feb 02, 2015

MICHAEL DEAN vs. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, CHEROKEE INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gino Dean's petition for reconsideration of an order appointing Shannen Patton as guardian ad litem and trustee for a minor applicant. Gino Dean, the decedent's brother and applicant's uncle, lacked standing to challenge the order as he is not a party and failed to demonstrate good cause for removal of the applicant's mother. Furthermore, the order appointing the guardian is not a final award, rendering it ineligible for reconsideration.

Guardian ad LitemTrusteeMinorPetition for ReconsiderationStandingGood CauseNot a Final OrderRemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 24,180 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