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
May 09, 2000

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Chapter 7 Trustee, N. David Roberts, Jr., filed a Motion to Compromise Claims, proposing a settlement of $25,000.00 for the Debtor's claims against J. Hicks Excavating, Inc. and USF & G. Several creditors, including Don Bayless Heating and Air, Luethke Surveying Company, West Pointe Development, Inc., and Ronald C. Frye, filed objections, deeming the settlement inadequate. The court evaluated the likelihood of success in litigation, its complexity and expense, and the availability of counsel willing to work on a contingency basis. Concluding that the Debtor's claims had merit and a firm was willing to litigate them, the court found the proposed compromise not fair, equitable, or in the best interests of the creditors. Therefore, the Trustee's Motion to Compromise Claims was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Motion to CompromiseCreditor ObjectionsEstate AssetsContingency FeeTrustee's DutiesAdversary ProceedingsPerformance BondForeclosure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1988

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied judicial approval for the compromise and settlement of a personal injury action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the petition and approving the compromise settlement. The court found that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the application. Key factors included the defendants' limited insurance coverage of $10,000/$20,000 and the difficulty the petitioner would face in proving

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalCompromise SettlementInsurance Coverage LimitsSerious Injury ThresholdAppellate ReviewDiscretion AbuseLien RightsDelay Excusable
References
1
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1984

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves a special proceeding under Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) where the plaintiffs-petitioners sought permission to compromise a personal injury action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted their motion for leave to renew and reargue their application, subsequently granting the application to compromise the action. The Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee appealed this decision, arguing the $22,500 settlement was inadequate and the permission to settle was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the resettled order, finding that the liability and damage questions in the underlying action, which involved a dog attack aggravating previous injuries and precipitating surgery, were problematical, thus concluding that the settlement grant was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjurySettlementCompromiseDog AttackAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDamagesLiabilityAggravated Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Mrs. Golda Gladys Land sued Liberty Insurance Company to set aside a compromise settlement after her husband, Mr. Land, died from an injury sustained at work. The jury found that Mr. Land's injury was accidental, job-related, and caused his death, and that the insurance adjuster, Hogan, falsely represented to Mrs. Land that there was no evidence of injury, inducing her to settle for $2,500. Hogan was also found to have concealed material information from Mrs. Land, who, despite having less information than Hogan, relied on his representations due to her lack of business experience. The court addressed whether the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's finding that Hogan's representation was an honest opinion. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hogan's statement, given his expertise and Mrs. Land's reliance, legally amounted to a statement of fact, and its falsity rendered the settlement release non-binding, regardless of whether the misrepresentation was intentional.

Compromise SettlementFraudMisrepresentationRelianceInsurance AdjusterJury FindingsAppellate ReviewMedical Opinion AdmissibilityRelease AvoidanceDeath Benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This proceeding involves an uncontested application for leave to settle and compromise a wrongful death action stemming from a fire on December 4, 1980, which resulted in the death of the decedent, survived by a spouse and three children. The proposed structured settlement totals $5,650,000, comprising a cash payment and annuities purchased through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, designed to provide guaranteed periodic payments of $37,674,000. The court addresses several issues, including the propriety of attorney's fees, the allocation of annuity costs among beneficiaries based on the Kaiser formula, and potential modifications to equalize shares among the children. The court found the proposed allocation unacceptable as it granted the widow significantly more than her Kaiser share and penalized the children, and also identified drawbacks in the guardian ad litem's suggestion due to its impact on the youngest child from inflation and a substantial reduction in their Kaiser entitlement. The decision concludes by proposing modifications to the guardian's plan, including increasing annual support and adjusting shares between the middle and youngest child, and ultimately remands the matter for reconsideration due to the changes affecting the parties and the widow's annuity.

Wrongful Death SettlementStructured SettlementAnnuity AllocationPecuniary LossDependency PeriodBeneficiary SharesKaiser FormulaGuardian Ad LitemAttorney's FeesEstate Distribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

A New York City police officer, injured in an auto accident, settled a third-party action. To preserve his workers' compensation rights, he sought a nunc pro tunc compromise order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which was granted on January 11, 1990. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, noting that the delay in obtaining the order was not due to the petitioner's fault and did not prejudice the city, especially since the third-party settlement was for the full policy limit. The court also found satisfactory compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [5], despite minor technical omissions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise and SettlementThird-Party ActionPolice Officer InjuryAuto AccidentAppellate AffirmationStatutory ComplianceLack of PrejudiceInsurance Policy Limit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Surrogate's Court considered a petition to compromise a wrongful death action and settle the administratrix's account. The decedent, a construction foreman, was fatally injured in 1980, survived by his spouse and four sons. A structured settlement was reached with multiple defendants for a court-determined present value of $1,246,578. The court approved the settlement but modified the distribution of proceeds to align with the Kaiser formula and addressed attorneys' fees. It ruled that attorneys' fees should be paid proportionally with the structured settlement receipts, rather than a large upfront sum, to protect the distributees' interests, especially the minor children, and directed proper handling of funds for infant distributees.

Wrongful DeathStructured SettlementAttorneys' FeesInfant DistributeesEstate AdministrationKaiser FormulaSurrogate's CourtGuardian ad litemPresent ValueSettlement Distribution
References
8
Case No. WCK0071378
Regular
Aug 07, 2008

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves a worker's compensation appeal concerning temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation rates. However, the parties submitted a compromise and release agreement for $140,000.00 to settle all claims, including potential death benefits for dependents. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the applicant's best interest, considering the release of death benefits and the absence of specific vocational rehabilitation protections.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation Delay RateThomas FindingRogers ReleaseDeath BenefitsCumulative Industrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeckSpineBack
References
2
Case No. ADJ8350670
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves a dispute over the approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, legs, and abdomen. The WCJ issued an order requiring further medical evaluation despite the parties filing an amended C&R. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ's order was inappropriate. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and approved the amended C&R, awarding the applicant a net recovery of $15,335.71.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJ OrderQME evaluationAME evaluationabdominal aspectsdriver unloaderindustrial injurypermanent disability advancesattorney's fee
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 782 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