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. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2002

Alexander v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the denial of the petitioner's application for leave to file a late notice of claim. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, did not establish that the respondents had timely notice of the facts, and could not show that the respondents would not be substantially prejudiced. The excuse of awaiting an accident report was deemed unreasonable as the petitioner already possessed necessary information. Furthermore, the workers' compensation report allegedly filed by the employer did not adequately disclose the basis for liability. The substantial passage of time since February 2001 prejudiced the respondents' ability to investigate alleged ladder defects and collect witness testimony.

late notice of claimreasonable excuseprejudiceworkers' compensation reportaccident reportSupreme Courtdenial of applicationfailure to demonstrate noticeinvestigation impairmentwitness testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moran v. Vaccaro

Plaintiffs, including Local 1-2 of the Utility Workers’ Union of America and Thomas Moran et al., filed a complaint against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and seven of its management employees. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Clean Air Act related to asbestos handling at Con Edison’s 74th Street Generating Station and included two state law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were based on wholly past violations and that plaintiffs failed to comply with the Act's 60-day prior notice requirement. Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional defects by alleging intermittent violations and adding more plaintiffs. The court granted the motion to dismiss the original complaint, finding it defective due to allegations of only past violations and a failure to provide proper written notice. Leave to file the amended complaint was denied because it would be barred by an existing EPA suit against Con Edison for similar violations and the notice issue remained unresolved. The dismissal of the federal claim also resulted in the dismissal of the state law claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction.

Clean Air ActCitizen SuitAsbestosEnvironmental LawJurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissNotice RequirementPast ViolationsOngoing Violations
References
22
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

The applicant, Preston Lee Brown Scott, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2018 and is subject to a pre-filing order. This order requires him to obtain prior approval from a judge before filing any documents with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). He has filed multiple petitions for reconsideration without this approval. The WCAB has reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances to warrant acceptance. Therefore, the documents submitted by Mr. Scott are not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading
References
16
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034), ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, AIG, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

Kristian Von Ritzhoff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10782. This designation requires him to obtain prior approval from the Presiding Judge or the Appeals Board before filing any pleadings, unless represented by a licensed attorney. The WCAB reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Von Ritzhoff, dated September 10, 2012, and determined it was *not accepted* for filing. This ruling signifies the Board's adherence to the pre-filing order in managing the applicant's litigation activities.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalExtraordinary remedyDeputy CommissionerOgden EntertainmentBroadspire
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jex v. Albion Correctional Facility

A vocational cosmetology instructor, the claimant, sustained a workplace injury in 1994, exacerbating preexisting respiratory issues, and received workers' compensation benefits until October 1995. In 1999, before taking disability retirement, she filed a new claim for an occupational disease caused by workplace air quality dating back to 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed her occupational disease claim time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a decision upheld after her application for reconsideration was denied. The court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that occupational disease claims must be filed within two years of disablement and awareness of its work-related cause. Evidence from October and December 1995 indicated the claimant's knowledge of the link between her respiratory problems and employment, thus rendering her 1999 claim untimely.

Occupational diseaseUntimely claimTime-barredRespiratory problemsVocational cosmetology instructorWorkers’ Compensation BoardAppealEvidence of knowledgeDisablement dateWorkplace injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,106 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