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. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. 12 Civ. 3763(AJN)
Regular Panel Decision

R.B. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs R.B. and M.L.B., parents of D.B., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision. The State Review Officer (SRO) had previously affirmed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, which found D.B.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) sufficient under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for D.B.'s enrollment in a private school, challenging the IEP's procedural and substantive adequacy and the appropriateness of the DOE's assigned school placement. The District Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate and the assigned school appropriate, thereby denying tuition reimbursement.

Education LawIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerDue Process ComplaintTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentProcedural Adequacy
References
25
Case No. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of B.

B, a 26-year-old woman with Down's syndrome and mild to moderate retardation, sought a tubal ligation. Her mother and guardian, D.P., petitioned the Supreme Court, Tompkins County, to modify a 1993 order that had prohibited such sterilization without further court review. The court assessed B's capacity to provide informed consent, considering testimonies from her gynecologist, psychiatric social worker, mother, and an independent psychologist. While one expert initially questioned her capacity, B's own testimony demonstrated a clear understanding of the procedure and her reasons for wanting it. Applying the Nilsson standards for sterilization petitions, the court found that the procedure was in B's best interests. Consequently, the petition was granted, affirming B's capacity to consent and modifying the previous order to authorize the tubal ligation.

GuardianshipSterilizationInformed ConsentMental Hygiene LawIncapacityDevelopmental DisabilityDown SyndromeReproductive RightsMedical TreatmentBest Interests
References
14
Case No. ADJ456440 (ANA 0402548) ADJ7979843
Regular
Feb 03, 2014

GLENN MORASH vs. C & B TOWING AND TRANSPORT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal because the Order of Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution was a final order, making reconsideration, not removal, the appropriate remedy. The applicant's argument that the Board could set aside the dismissal under Labor Code section 5803 or equity powers under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 was rejected. The Board also admonished the applicant's attorney to file more coherent and specific petitions in the future.

Petition for RemovalOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionLabor Code section 5803inherent equity powerCode of Civil Procedure section 473Section 5900(a)aggrievedfinal orderreconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ9145716
Regular
Jun 19, 2014

FARZANEH FOROUGHI vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, overturning a prior order that compelled her deposition and denied her protective order. The applicant, claiming psychiatric injury, had a previous deposition terminated due to severe distress upon the appearance of her supervisor, Axel Colin. A psychiatrist opined that Colin's presence would be detrimental to her mental health. The Board found that Colin's exclusion was warranted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 to protect the applicant from oppression.

Petition for RemovalProtective OrderAbuse of DiscretionIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryEmployer RepresentativeDepositionOppressionExclusion of WitnessMedical Information Disclosure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. ADJ8580497
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

In three consolidated workers' compensation cases, the Appeals Board rescinded its prior consolidation order and imposed $1,000 in sanctions against lien claimant ARS Legal and its representative. The Board found that ARS Legal improperly attempted to compel claims adjusters' appearances via notice, misinterpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). The Board rejected ARS Legal's arguments regarding procedural ignorance and good faith, affirming that the representative's duty included understanding proper legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance CompanyARS LegalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearClaims AdjusterSubpoenaWCJLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 8,993 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