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

950 Corbindale, L.P. v. Kotts Capital Holdings Ltd. Partnership

This accelerated interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The dispute involves three limited partnerships formed in 2004 for real estate acquisition and management. The partnership agreements contained a broad arbitration clause, but limited arbitrators to awarding "compensatory damages only." Appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, LP and Kotts Capital Holdings, Inc., sought declaratory relief in district court after an offer to purchase the properties was rejected. Appellants, including 950 Corbindale, L.P. and others, moved to compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's scope. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court held the arbitration agreements were valid and the dispute, including the request for declaratory relief, was within the scope of arbitration, despite the damages limitation. The court reasoned that "compensatory damages only" modified the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant other forms of relief. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration ClausePartnership DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealContract InterpretationScope of ArbitrationCompensatory DamagesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP

Plaintiff Stephanie Sutherland sued her former employer, Ernst & Young LLP (E & Y), alleging violations of the FLSA and New York labor laws for unpaid overtime. E & Y moved to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel individual arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement with a class waiver. The court denied E & Y's motion, finding the class waiver provision unenforceable. The court reasoned that enforcing the waiver would make it prohibitively expensive for Sutherland to pursue her claims individually, effectively granting E & Y de facto immunity from liability. Despite the unenforceability of the class waiver, the court noted it could not compel class arbitration due to the agreement's silence on the matter, following the precedent of Stolt-Nielsen.

FLSAArbitration AgreementClass Action WaiverOvertime WagesEmployment LawStatutory RightsEnforceabilityCollective ActionEconomic FeasibilityJudicial Forum
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

The Supreme Court order was unanimously modified on appeal. The modification involved deleting the provision that granted the third-party defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide authorization for all of the plaintiff's workers' compensation records and medical records. The court reasoned that CPLR 3102 [a] does not contain any provision allowing a third-party defendant to obtain such authorization from the plaintiff. The order, as modified, was affirmed without costs.

Discovery DisputeWorkers' Compensation RecordsMedical Records DisclosureMotion to CompelCPLR 3102 [a]Appellate Court RulingPlaintiff RightsThird-Party Defendant ActionErie County Supreme CourtOrder Modification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strawn v. AFC Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara Strawn sued her employer, AFC Enterprises (Church’s Chicken), for a slip and fall injury sustained at work. The defendant, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, had implemented an employee injury benefit plan (AFC Plan) and a mandatory "Value Deal Agreement" requiring all disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration. The AFC Plan offered significantly fewer benefits compared to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The Court denied the motion, ruling that the mandatory arbitration agreement, coupled with the substantially inferior benefits, violated Texas public policy concerning the workers’ compensation system. The Court reasoned that an arbitral forum is not sufficiently similar to a judicial forum (lacking a jury, having relaxed evidentiary rules, and offering limited judicial review) to maintain the "quid pro quo" balance intended by the Texas Legislature.

Federal Arbitration ActTexas Workers' Compensation ActArbitration AgreementPublic Policy ViolationEmployment ContractNon-subscriber EmployerSlip and Fall InjuryEmployee Benefits PlanJudicial ReviewArbitral Forum
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

In this ERISA action, the plaintiff sought review of the defendant's termination of long-term disability benefits and filed a motion to compel discovery regarding alleged conflicts of interest, bias, and procedural irregularities. The defendant, Unum Life Insurance Co. and UnumProvident Corporation, countered with a motion for a protective order. Citing Sixth Circuit precedent, the court found that limited discovery outside the administrative record is permissible when a claimant identifies specific procedural challenges and provides a reasonable evidentiary basis. The plaintiff demonstrated such a basis through testimony from former employees and internal corporate documents hinting at policies to deny claims for financial reasons. Therefore, the court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel for specific discovery requests and partially denied the defendant's motion for a protective order, allowing for circumscribed discovery into these allegations.

ERISA BenefitsLong Term DisabilityDiscovery RulesConflict of InterestProcedural Due ProcessArbitrary and Capricious StandardAdministrative RecordMedical Advisor TestimonyClaims Handling PracticesInsurance Company Policies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Crawford

The claimant, along with her husband, owned E & F Fuel Oil Service, Inc., a fuel oil and repair business. When her husband became disabled, the claimant, possessing limited office skills, struggled to find a replacement mechanic due to the disparity between her business's pay rates and union wages. Faced with declining profitability, the couple sold the business, after which the claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits. Although an Administrative Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, deeming the business closure non-compelling and the claimant's job-seeking efforts insufficient. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding ample evidence of compelling reasons for the business closure due to its declining state and the critical loss of the husband's expertise, and that the claimant's efforts to find a replacement were reasonable, thereby remitting the case for further proceedings.

Voluntary QuittingGood CauseUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationBusiness ClosureDeclining BusinessCompelling ReasonsEfforts to MitigateUnemployment Insurance AppealAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. JNJ Express, Inc.

The case involves a motion to compel arbitration filed by JNJ Express, Inc. against Marion and Mervin Carney. The Carneys, independent truck drivers, had lease agreements with JNJ, which included an arbitration clause. They filed a complaint in state court alleging violations of Truth in Leasing Regulations (TIL) and breach of contract, without first attempting face-to-face resolution as stipulated by the arbitration agreement. JNJ removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, arguing the Carneys were independent contractors, not employees, and thus subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court analyzed whether the Carneys were employees (exempt from FAA) or independent contractors and found them to be independent contractors. Consequently, the court granted JNJ's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.

ArbitrationIndependent ContractorFederal Arbitration ActTruth in Leasing RegulationsMotor CarrierLease AgreementInterstate CommerceTruck DriversMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployment Status
References
14
Case No. ADJ7271031
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

THOMAS DACK vs. CEMEX, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after the WCJ denied their request to compel the applicant's attendance at a QME examination. The applicant's attorney's office had previously stated the applicant would not attend QME evaluations until litigation was resolved and attempted to strike a QME. The Appeals Board is giving notice of its intention to grant the defendant's petition and compel the applicant's attendance, unless the applicant shows good cause within ten days. The Board finds the defendant has presented a prima facie case for compelling the examination, noting a lack of formal objection from the applicant.

Petition to CompelPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2WCJPetition for RemovalApplicant objectionGood causeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial injury
References
0
Case No. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

The petitioner sought to compel arbitration in New York City concerning damages to goods shipped by the respondent from New York to Barcelona, Spain. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties which contained two conflicting arbitration clauses: one in Part I mandating arbitration in London, and another in Part II requiring arbitration in New York. The court, presided over by District Judge Motley, interpreted the contract, specifically a preamble stating that Part I provisions prevail over Part II in case of conflict, and also considered that the London clause was in the "typewritten" portion of the agreement, which typically holds precedence. Citing federal contract law and similar maritime contract cases, the court concluded that the London arbitration clause controls the location of arbitration. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration in New York was denied, although no order was issued to compel arbitration in London as the respondent did not file a cross-petition.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 7,061 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