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

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puricelli v. CNA Insurance

Plaintiffs Diane Puricelli and Charles Hughes jointly sued their former employer, CNA, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law, alongside intentional infliction of emotional distress. CNA sought to sever the plaintiffs' claims or hold separate trials, arguing they were misjoined and lacked common transactional origins or questions of law/fact. The court, applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) and 42(b), determined that the claims were sufficiently related due to a common pattern of alleged age discrimination following CNA's takeover of Continental Insurance Company. Despite individual factual differences, the court found both a 'same transaction or occurrence' and 'common question of law or fact.' Consequently, the defendant's motion to sever the claims or conduct separate trials was denied, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed jointly.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSeverance of ClaimsJoinder of PartiesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 20(a)Rule 42(b)Human Rights LawEmotional DistressEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ1513511
Regular
Sep 21, 2015

RIZALINA DERRO vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER, TERRACE VIEW CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, COVENANT CARE, SOUTH GATE CARE CENTER, BROADSPIRE, SUN HEALTH CARE, AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found Sun Health Care/Regency and CNA Claims Plus liable for the applicant's left wrist injury. The applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her left wrist during the period of 11-1-1995 to 11-1-1996, while employed by both Covenant Care (insured by AIG) and Sun Health Care (insured by CNA). A previous Compromise and Release barred claims against Covenant Care and AIG, leaving Sun Health Care and CNA liable. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which relied on medical evidence and legal precedent to uphold the finding of industrial injury and liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaLeft Wrist InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCompromise and ReleaseApportionmentDate of InjuryMedical Probability
References
0
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. ADJ2588415
Regular
Jun 04, 2012

Hilda Marron vs. Celstron International, Continental Casualty Company, c/o CNA ClaimPlus

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by CNA Claims Plus/American Casualty Company concerning a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. CNA was ordered to reimburse the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) $203,208.35 for payments made. CNA argued CIGA failed to prove the necessity and reasonableness of these payments, but the WCAB denied reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding CNA had ample opportunity to rebut CIGA's evidence at trial and failed to do so.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCELESTRON INTERNATIONALCONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANYCNA CLAIMPLUSCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAREIMBURSEMENTMEDICAL REPORTSBILLSEOR
References
2
Case No. ADJ1921592
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWARD SHEPHERD vs. BAYSHORE SYSTEMS, CNA CASUALTY, Administered By CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that his claim for further vocational rehabilitation benefits was time-barred. The Board granted reconsideration to review whether the applicant's medical condition warranted an extension of jurisdiction over his vocational rehabilitation benefits. The case is remanded to the trial level judge to determine if jurisdiction was reserved, considering the applicant's medical status and the application of relevant Labor Code sections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5404.5Rehabilitation Unit DeterminationReservation of JurisdictionIndustrial InjuryEquipment MechanicApplicant's Medical Condition
References
1
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 17,845 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