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

Rapid Settlements Ltd. v. SSC Settlements, LLC

This case involves an appeal and mandamus proceeding filed by Rapid Settlements, Ltd. and Rapid Management Corporation (Rapid) against SSC Settlements, L.L.C. and Stone Street Capital, Inc. (SSC). Rapid challenged a final summary judgment related to the transfer of structured settlement payments from William Prante. Rapid sought to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing the dispute with SSC fell under an arbitration clause in their agreement with Prante, which also included a right of first refusal and a security interest. The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, vacated the trial court's denial of Rapid's motion to stay, and reversed parts of the summary judgment concerning Rapid's security interest and right of first refusal. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to SSC and its injunction preventing Rapid from compelling SSC to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ProceedingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentStructured SettlementRight of First RefusalSecurity InterestEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelContract Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1988

Anzalone v. Traveler's Insurance

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Remy

George Remy, Jr. (Remy), an injured worker, entered into a worker’s compensation compromise settlement agreement with Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). The agreement was based on representations made by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert Pace, Jr., who was later found to be an agent of TEIA. Remy's condition deteriorated rapidly after the settlement, and it was discovered that Dr. Pace had misdiagnosed his severe spinal cord injury, which led to quadriplegia. Remy sought to set aside the settlement, and a jury found in his favor, but the trial court disregarded the jury's finding that Dr. Pace was TEIA's agent. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding agency, affirming the judgment for rescission based on constructive fraud.

Constructive FraudMutual MistakeWorker's Compensation SettlementRescissionAgency RelationshipMedical MisdiagnosisSpinal Cord InjuryQuadriplegiaAppellate ReviewJury Findings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Insurance Company of Texas v. Land

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

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2000

In Re West Pointe Properties, L.P.

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

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1984

Kacprowski v. Sorro

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. 14-07-00880-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

Symetra National Life Insurance Company and Symetra Life Insurance Company v. Rapid Settlements, LTD

Symetra National Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Life Insurance Co. appealed a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award that directed them to make structured settlement payments to Rapid Settlements, Ltd., instead of the original payee, Paul Patterson. Symetra argued that the transfer lacked the required court approval under the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) and violated public policy, while Rapid Settlements asserted it was not a 'transfer' under SSPA, federal law preempted SSPA, and Symetra lacked standing. The court rejected Rapid's arguments, emphasizing that the SSPA mandates court preapproval for structured settlement payment transfers to protect payees and their dependents. Consequently, the court held that the arbitration award violated Texas public policy by effectuating an unapproved transfer. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the arbitration award was vacated.

Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)PreemptionStandingGarnishmentTransfer of PaymentsAnnuity IssuerTexas Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,704 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