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. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07587 [176 AD3d 1069]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2019

Matter of Rosenberg v. Schwartz

The case involves Eric Rosenberg and Allan Schwartz, who were 50% owners of Blind Builders USA, Inc. They agreed to arbitrate their claims to the company's assets before a rabbinical arbitration tribunal, which issued an award including the distribution of accounts receivable. Rosenberg sought to confirm the award, while Schwartz moved to vacate it, arguing it was indefinite regarding the accounts receivable distribution. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed appeals from prior orders and an earlier judgment. It modified the December 23, 2016, judgment, finding the arbitration award indefinite as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable incurred prior to the award date were to be distributed. Consequently, that portion of the award was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the rabbinical arbitration tribunal for further proceedings on that specific issue.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardAccounts ReceivableBusiness DisputePartnership DisputeRabbinical Arbitration TribunalIndefinite AwardNonfinal Award
References
10
Case No. ADJ9903270
Regular
Jun 17, 2019

YESENIA MELENDEZ vs. KC PHARMACEUTICALS, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, lien claimant ResHealth Medical Group's petition for reconsideration was denied because its corporate status was suspended by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) as of April 1, 2016. This suspension prevented ResHealth from prosecuting its lien. While Javlin Three, an alleged assignee, contended it could pursue the lien, it failed to provide evidence that the assignment covered the specific accounts receivable in question. Furthermore, Javlin's own capacity to sue as an assignee was questionable if the assignment occurred after ResHealth's FTB suspension.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFTB suspensionFranchise Tax BoardResHealth Medical GroupJavlin Threelien claimantassigneeassignorLabor Code section 4903.8(a)(1)cease doing business
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
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

Sclafani v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiff Joseph Sclafani sustained a torn rotator cuff on October 18, 2000, while working as an electrician at a construction site due to a falling overhead lighting cable. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against Eastman Kodak Company, the alleged tenant of the premises. Eastman moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (1) and (2), Sclafani's right to sue had been automatically assigned to the workers' compensation provider because he failed to commence the action within the statutory timeframe after receiving benefits. However, the court found that the law requires explicit notice to the injured employee about the forfeiture and assignment of their rights, which Sclafani did not receive. Therefore, the court denied Eastman's motion to dismiss, affirming Sclafani's standing to pursue the action.

Workers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAssignment of Cause of ActionNotice RequirementMotion to DismissConstruction Site InjuryRotator Cuff InjuryThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1999

In re the Claim of Petrocelli

The claimant was dismissed from her bookkeeper position after threatening a co-worker, a behavior she had been reprimanded for earlier. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that her employment was terminated due to misconduct, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. It noted that continuous threatening or harassing behavior despite employer warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also clarified that the claimant's differing account of events merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, which it was entitled to do.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace threatsHarassmentEmployee dischargeCredibility issueAdministrative appealAppellate DivisionUnemployment Insurance LawEmployer warnings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hylton v. Norrell Health Care of New York

Paulette B. Hylton, a home health aide, sued her employer, Norrell Health Care of New York, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Hylton claimed that after reporting sexual harassment by a patient's son, she received fewer assignments, was denied her W-2 form, and received a negative work reference. The court found that the sexual harassment was not caused by Norrell, and Norrell took prompt and reasonable remedial action. Furthermore, the court determined that Hylton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, as her reduced work was due to her taking assignments with competing agencies and a general business downturn at Norrell, and the W-2 and reference issues were not causally linked to her complaint. Therefore, the District Court granted Norrell's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Hylton's complaint.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentHome Health AideTemporary Staffing AgencyEmployer LiabilityHostile Work EnvironmentCausalityAdverse Employment Action
References
14
Case No. ADJ9286923
Regular
May 28, 2019

Oscar Abrego vs. Frontline Finish, Security National Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to Reshealth Medical Group's petition regarding its lien. The Board rescinded the prior finding that there was insufficient evidence of an assignment between Javlin Three and Reshealth for accounts receivable. This case, along with other matters involving Reshealth, has been consolidated under a master file for further proceedings to address complex issues concerning Reshealth's liens and potential stays under Labor Code section 4615. The lien is returned to the trial level for inclusion in these consolidated proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAssignmentAccounts ReceivableLabor Code Section 4615StayOrder of ConsolidationMaster File
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,207 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