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. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02756 [194 AD3d 421]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Mullins v. Center Line Studios, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the earlier order. It ruled that Center Line Studios, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 claims because it was not a statutory agent and lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. Additionally, NYC Production Core LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against it, with the exception of contractual indemnification claims, as it was identified as the plaintiff's special employer. A triable issue of fact was found to exist regarding Center Line Studios, Inc.'s potential common-law negligence in creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition.

Labor Law §§ 240(1)Labor Law §§ 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentSpecial Employer DoctrineContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentLadder Fall InjuryPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 1998

Bailey v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the Capital District

Plaintiff Robin Bailey, an electrical supervisor, was struck in the forehead by a falling concrete core while working on a construction site owned by the YMCA. The incident occurred after he had plugged in an extension cord on an elevated running track and returned to the ground floor. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the injury was associated with an elevated risk. The Supreme Court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff's work on the ground floor did not involve an elevation-related risk requiring safety devices, and the concrete core did not constitute material being improperly hoisted or secured.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryLabor Law § 240(1) LiabilityElevation RiskSummary Judgment ReversalWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionConstruction SitePlaintiff InjuryEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casual, Inc.)

Pied Piper Casuals, Inc., a ladies apparel manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was converted to Chapter 7, with Robert Fisher appointed as Trustee. The Trustee initiated an action against the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (I.C.S.P.) to recover $1,407,208 for theft losses under an insurance policy. I.C.S.P. argued the claim was untimely and moved to remove the proceeding to the district court, which denied the motion as premature, directing a determination by the bankruptcy court on whether it was a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court ruled that the Trustee's action seeking insurance proceeds is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), equating it to a turnover proceeding, and emphasizing the nexus between such actions and efficient bankruptcy administration.

BankruptcyCore ProceedingInsurance PolicyTurnover ProceedingTheft LossChapter 7 BankruptcyDebtor's EstateFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionCourt Reference
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers

St. Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York, a Chapter 11 debtor, objected to a $48.75 million claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor under the N.Y. WARN Act. The core issue was whether the bankruptcy court or an administrative proceeding by the Department of Labor was the appropriate forum to liquidate this claim. The Department of Labor argued for its administrative proceeding, citing the 'police powers' exception to the automatic stay, and also requested a determination by the Commissioner on certain issues. The Debtors contended the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction due to the proof of claim being filed. The court found it had core jurisdiction to determine the allowance and amount of the claim, declining to defer to another forum, especially given multiple related WARN claims. The court also denied the Debtors' request for an injunction, stating it was not properly brought as an adversary proceeding.

BankruptcyChapter 11WARN ActJurisdictionClaim LiquidationAutomatic StayPolice Powers ExceptionInjunctionCore ProceedingProof of Claim
References
13
Case No. 08 Civ. 7831, 09 Civ. 6102, 10 Civ. 2781, 10 Civ. 9184
Regular Panel Decision

Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. v. Mudd

This Opinion & Order from the Southern District of New York addresses multiple motions to dismiss in consolidated private securities actions. Various plaintiffs, including a class action, Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. (CIS), Edward Smith, and Liberty, alleged that Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), its executives, and certain underwriters made material misstatements concerning FNMA's subprime/Alt-A loan exposure, risk management, and core capital financials. The court denied defendants' motions to strike allegations and dismissed certain federal securities claims related to subprime/Alt-A exposure and risk management against FNMA, Daniel H. Mudd, and Enrico Dallavecchia. However, the court granted motions to dismiss claims regarding core capital financials and dismissed all state law claims against FNMA, Mudd, Dallavecchia, Robert J. Levin, Stephen M. Swad, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Smith Underwriters, and CIS Underwriters, including Liberty's entire complaint and claims against Levin and Swad due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Securities LitigationMotions to DismissSecurities FraudRule 10b-5Section 10(b) Exchange ActPSLRASLUSA PreemptionFederal National Mortgage AssociationSubprime LoansAlt-A Loans
References
82
Case No. ADJ8080356, ADJ8080370
Regular
Mar 29, 2013

CIRILO GARCIA vs. CORE MARK INTERNATIONAL, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves an applicant, Cirilo Garcia, who claimed industrial injuries to his right wrist, arms, low back, psyche, and sleep. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Garcia's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ found Garcia not credible and determined he failed to prove he sustained any industrial injuries, either specific or continuous trauma, during his employment. The denial was not based on employer defenses but on the applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof with credible evidence.

AOE/COEReconsiderationWCJCredibilityLabor Code Section 3208.3(e)Labor Code Section 3208(h)Specific InjuryContinuous TraumaPsycheSleep
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Panarella v. JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp.

A mechanic, instructed to report early, found the work gates locked. After unsuccessful attempts to locate the person with keys and contacting his supervisor, he attempted to climb a 12-foot fence, resulting in a fractured wrist. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injury compensable, ruling it arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the act was personal or forbidden. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the injury occurred on the employer's premises and the presumption of compensability was not rebutted, as the claimant's actions were motivated by job duties and not explicitly forbidden.

Injury at WorkPremises LiabilityEmployer InstructionHazardous AccessWorkplace SafetyCompensabilityAppellate AffirmationPresumption RebuttalPersonal Act DefenseForbidden Act Defense
References
7
Case No. ADJ8569158
Regular
Dec 26, 2017

MARIA SEVILLA vs. LIFE CORE CENTER OF VISTA, GALLAGHER BASSETT CORONA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration. The denial was based on the claimant's failure to specifically cite legal authority or the record, violating WCAB rules. Additionally, the claimant did not adequately explain how an internal calendaring error constituted excusable neglect for their non-appearance at a lien conference. Therefore, the petition was denied without relief.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien claimantWCAB Rule 10846WCJ reportLabor Code section 5902ConnexumCode of Civil Procedure section 473Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.excusable errorfailure to appear
References
1
Case No. ADJ2537816 (LBO 0392489)
Regular
Mar 16, 2023

CAROL BERNHARD vs. CORE MARK INTERNATIONAL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's petition to correct a clerical error in a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order. The applicant claimed the permanent disability indemnity award was incorrect. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding the petition was timely despite a delay in its review. The WCAB affirmed its prior order but amended it to reflect a corrected permanent disability of 63%, entitling the applicant to $98,957.91 in indemnity and an attorney fee of $18,835.00.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationClerical ErrorPermanent Disability IndemnityAdjudication NumberLabor CodeDue ProcessStatutory Time PeriodFindings of FactAward
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 419 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