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

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cosgrove v. County of Ulster

Petitioner, injured in a work-related accident, received workers' compensation and subsequently settled a third-party tort action against the respondent for $15,000. Petitioner's counsel believed the employer's insurance carrier had approved a one-third share of the settlement but the carrier failed to provide disbursement instructions for its portion. After the carrier terminated workers' compensation benefits, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court granted this approval, which the carrier then appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the settlement amount was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial approval was not due to petitioner's fault, and the carrier was not prejudiced by the delay.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCarrier ConsentThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewSettlement ReasonablenessDelay ExcuseLack of Prejudice
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation

This Order and Opinion addresses the approval of settlements in 78 cases stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs, represented by Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP, are individuals who developed respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses from working in buildings surrounding the World Trade Center site. These settlements resolve claims against a multitude of defendants in the 21-mc-102 docket. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein meticulously reviewed the settlements, finding them procedurally and substantively fair and reasonable given the inherent complexities of mass tort litigation. The motion to approve the settlements is granted, leading to the dismissal of claims for 26 plaintiffs and partial dismissal against settling defendants for the remaining 52 plaintiffs.

September 11 litigationWorld Trade CenterMass tortSettlement approvalToxic dust exposureRespiratory illnessesGastrointestinal illnessesSouthern District of New YorkClass action factorsProcedural fairness
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

Paneto v. RMSCO, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied a petition to approve a workers' compensation claim settlement nunc pro tunc. The petitioner failed to obtain the workers' compensation carrier's consent or judicial approval within the statutory three-month period, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). Although late approval may be granted if the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault and the carrier was not prejudiced, the petitioner failed to establish lack of fault for a delay exceeding two years. Furthermore, the petitioner did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the $7,000 settlement amount derived from a $50,000 insurance policy. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the denial of the application, concluding that the motion court's determination was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

Workers’ Compensation LawSettlement AgreementNunc Pro Tunc OrderThird-Party ClaimCarrier ConsentJudicial DiscretionTimelinessAppellate DivisionAffirmationNeglect
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeng Xi Chen v. Spitz

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 2, 2009, which granted the plaintiff's motion for nunc pro tunc approval of a third-party settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). This order was subsequently affirmed unanimously by the appellate court. The appellate review found that nonparty appellant Lu Gang was indeed the plaintiff's employer at the time of the accident and had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) acted as the workers' compensation carrier and consented to the $25,500 settlement in the underlying action. The appellate court also determined that the plaintiff's delay in seeking court approval for the settlement was not due to his fault or neglect and did not cause prejudice to the UEF, affirming the original decision.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalUninsured Employers' FundCourt Approval DelayEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury ActionInsurance CoverageStatutory Compliance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2000

Stiffen v. CNA Insurance

Petitioner Robert W. Stiffen, injured in the course of his employment, received workers' compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. He settled a third-party action against Charles Newman for $25,000 without the carrier's prior consent. Although benefits were initially reinstated, the carrier later refused retroactive consent to the settlement. Petitioners subsequently sought nunc pro tunc approval for the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which the Supreme Court granted. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the settlement reasonable, the delay in seeking approval not attributable to petitioners' fault, and no prejudice caused to the carrier by the delay.

Nunc pro tuncPersonal injury settlementWorkers' Compensation LawThird-party actionCarrier consentJudicial approvalPrejudiceReasonableness of settlementDelay in applicationWaiver of consent
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,243 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