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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Cano)

This memorandum opinion addresses a class action brought by current and former Chapter 13 debtors, including the Canos, against GMAC Mortgage Corporation, L.L.C. Plaintiffs allege that GMAC improperly charged and collected undisclosed fees and costs during and after their bankruptcy plans, violating confirmed plans, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016, and various Bankruptcy Code sections. The court partially grants GMAC's motion to dismiss certain claims based on specific Bankruptcy Code provisions (e.g., automatic stay, discharge injunction) which it found did not create private rights of action for post-confirmation conduct. However, the court denies dismissal for claims regarding violations of court orders confirming Chapter 13 plans and Rule 2016, affirming its jurisdiction and broad remedial authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enforce these and protect the 'fresh start' principle of bankruptcy. The court also rejects GMAC's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction over a nationwide class action for such violations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 DebtorsMortgage ContractsGMAC MortgageFees and CostsDischarge InjunctionAutomatic StayRule 2016Section 105Class Action Lawsuit
References
130
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. No. 75 B 1735
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1976

In Re WT Grant Co.

This case from the U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, addresses three appeals related to the bankruptcy estate of W. T. Grant Company. Paul S. Berger, Trustee, and other plaintiffs-appellants challenged a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing their amended complaint. They also appealed the denial of their motions for a nunc pro tunc extension to file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration of that denial. District Judge Irving Ben Cooper granted the defendant trustee Charles G. Rodman's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' initial appeal, ruling it was untimely filed 18 days after the Bankruptcy Court's order, exceeding the 10-day limit with a 30-day absolute maximum. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent denials of the extension and reconsideration motions, emphasizing the strict interpretation of Bankruptcy Rules 801, 802, and 803 to ensure the expeditious and final administration of bankrupt estates.

Bankruptcy AppealTimelinessNotice of AppealExcusable NeglectJurisdictional DefectBankruptcy Rules 801Bankruptcy Rules 802Bankruptcy Rules 803Finality of OrdersTrustee in Bankruptcy
References
10
Case No. 2016-08-0316
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2016

Spencer, John v. Supply Chain Solutions, LLC

John Spencer, a woodcutter for Supply Chain Solutions, LLC (SCS), sustained a work-related right-hand injury on November 25, 2015. After an initial delay in reporting and obtaining unauthorized medical treatment, he began authorized treatment with Dr. Christian Fahey on April 29, 2016, who placed him on light duty and later performed surgery. SCS terminated Mr. Spencer for alleged job abandonment, which the court found insufficient evidence for. The court ruled that Mr. Spencer is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits from April 29, 2016, to July 14, 2016, and temporary total disability benefits from July 15, 2016, to July 22, 2016.

Workers' compensationTemporary disability benefitsExpedited hearingRight-hand injuryJob abandonmentMedical treatmentSurgical procedureAverage weekly wageTennessee lawEmployment termination
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. 2016-06-0702
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2020

Willis, Earl v. Express Towing

Mr. Willis sustained an injury while working for Express Towing, an uninsured employer. The Court initially found him eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF). However, due to the bankruptcy discharge of Allen Mann, the sole owner of Express Towing, the potential liability of Mann and Express Towing was voided. Consequently, the Court found the case moot and dismissed it with prejudice, unable to conduct a compensation hearing. Despite Mr. Willis's diligent efforts to prosecute his claim, his attempts were halted by the bankruptcy ruling, and the UEF cannot be joined as a party to the workers' compensation claim for additional relief.

Workers' Compensation LawUninsured EmployerBankruptcy DischargeCase DismissalMootnessUninsured Employers FundEmployee BenefitsDisability RatingJudicial ReviewProcedural History
References
0
Case No. 2016-01-0212
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2016

Richards, Edward v. Kiewit Power Constructors Company

Edward Richards, an electrician, suffered a hernia in February 2015 while working for Kiewit Power Constructors Company, which was accepted as compensable. He underwent surgery by Dr. Claudine Siegert. In February 2016, Richards experienced a recurrence of the hernia after lifting a toolbox while working for another employer. Dr. Siegert opined that the recurrent hernia was a direct result of the original work-related hernia. The Court granted Mr. Richards' request for medical benefits, finding he is likely to prevail in proving entitlement to additional medical benefits, based on the direct and natural consequence rule. However, his request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient medical documentation of his disability post-February 2016.

Workers' CompensationHernia RecurrenceMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierMedical Opinion
References
6
Case No. 2016-05-1093
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2017

Ogden, Shawn v. McMinnville Tool & Die, Inc.

Shawn Ogden, an employee of McMinnville Tool & Die, Inc., suffered a compensable injury to his right arm in February 2015, which led to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). He underwent spinal cord stimulator surgery in August 2016. On October 1, 2016, Mr. Ogden fell at home due to leg weakness, resulting in paralysis. The central legal issue was whether this fall was a direct and natural result of his compensable injury or an independent, intervening cause. The Court found that Mr. Ogden's fall was a direct and natural consequence of his original injury and its treatment, entitling him to medical benefits and permanent total disability benefits. The Court also addressed the employer's arguments regarding loss of consciousness and negligent conduct by Mr. Ogden, ultimately ruling in favor of the employee.

Permanent Total DisabilitySpinal Cord StimulatorComplex Regional Pain SyndromeSubsequent InjuryDirect and Natural Consequence RuleIndependent Intervening CauseMedical BenefitsLeg WeaknessFallCausation
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 11,525 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