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. 91 B 10891
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Financial News Network Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses motions by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, counsel for the debtor (Financial News Network, FNN) and the equipment lessors committee respectively, seeking payment of prepetition fees in FNN's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Gibson, Dunn sought payment through the assumption of an employment agreement at a premium rate, while Kramer, Levin sought compensation under Section 503(b) for substantial contribution. The court denied Gibson, Dunn's motion, ruling that professional compensation is governed by Sections 327-330 of the Bankruptcy Code, not Section 365, and rejected the "doctrine of necessity" in this context. Kramer, Levin's motion for prepetition fees was also denied, without prejudice, as the court deemed the determination of "substantial contribution" premature and best addressed at the conclusion of the case.

Chapter 11Bankruptcy LawPrepetition FeesCounsel FeesExecutory ContractProfessional CompensationDoctrine of NecessitySubstantial ContributionDebtor-in-possessionBankruptcy Code Section 365
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1986

Claim of Foglia v. New York City Housing Authority

The claimant, a New York City Housing Authority police officer, sustained a compensable knee injury in 1974. The case was reopened in 1983 due to increased disability, and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was put on notice for potential liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The issue was whether there was an advance payment of compensation, which would relieve the Special Fund from liability. The claimant testified that he retired in 1983 but had been on limited duty performing clerical work at full salary since 1982 due to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that these full salary payments for lighter work constituted an advance payment of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that an advance payment of compensation relieved the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardAdvance PaymentSpecial FundReopened CasesDisabilitySchedule LossPolice OfficerLimited DutySubstantial EvidenceFactual Determination
References
2
Case No. 2018-06-0810
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2018

Smith, LaShonda v. Macy's Corporate Services

Ms. Lashonda Smith sought temporary disability and medical benefits after sustaining an injury on a Safe Harbor bus while returning home from work at Macy's. Macy's denied the claim, arguing the injury did not occur within the course and scope of employment, as they did not provide or pay for the bus service. The Court evaluated whether Macy's made a 'deliberate and substantial payment' for the transportation, as required for an exception to the 'going and coming' rule. Despite Macy's facilitating the service and deducting a nominal fee from employees' paychecks, the Court found insufficient evidence that Macy's deliberately and substantially paid for Ms. Smith's transportation. Therefore, the Court denied Ms. Smith's request for workers’ compensation benefits, concluding she is unlikely to prevail at a final hearing.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingCourse and Scope of EmploymentGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionEmployer-Provided TransportationBus AccidentTemporary DisabilityMedical BenefitsRecruiting Services AgreementPayroll Deduction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Boring & Tunneling Co. of America

Boring & Tunneling Company of America (Bortunco), a subcontractor, was not paid by Golf Services Group (contractor) for work performed on public water line projects. Bortunco, seeking payment under a bond secured by United Fire & Casualty Company (surety) as per the McGregor Act, sent a notice of claim. The initial notice lacked a notary's signature and seal on the sworn statement of account, though the statement was properly sworn to by Bortunco's agent. United Fire, after receiving the notice, argued that this defect constituted a failure to comply with the McGregor Act's notice provisions and moved for summary judgment. Bortunco contended it had substantially complied with the Act, or that United Fire had waived its right to assert notice defects, supporting its claim with affidavits confirming the notary's omission was a clerical error. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bortunco, awarding it $142,542.75. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the McGregor Act, being remedial, requires only substantial compliance for notice provisions other than deadlines. The court found Bortunco's notice substantially complied as it provided actual notice, contained all essential information, and the defect was a mere clerical error that did not frustrate the statute's purpose.

McGregor ActPayment BondSubstantial ComplianceNotice ProvisionsSworn StatementClerical ErrorSummary JudgmentSuretySubcontractorPublic Works Project
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, injured in 1986, initially established a right shoulder injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this but denied a causally related neck injury in 1996. After another application in 1998 alleging a worsened neck condition, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related neck injury and permanent partial disability, awarding benefits from February 5, 1998, which the Board affirmed. Separately, the Board also ruled the employer was entitled to credit schedule payments against disability payments made after February 5, 1998. The court affirmed both decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the deterioration of the neck injury post-1996 and that schedule awards are independent of actual disability periods, thus allowing the employer's credit.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule AwardDisability PaymentsNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryCausally Related InjuryReopening CaseMedical EvidenceMRI
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norberto Adame v. the State of Texas

This document is a form titled "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" used in Texas courts. It allows a plaintiff or defendant to declare their financial inability to pay court costs or an appeal bond. The form requires the individual to provide personal information, including their dependents, and to disclose whether they are represented by legal aid or receive public benefits. Detailed financial information, such as monthly income sources, property value, and monthly expenses, must be provided to substantiate the claim of indigency. The document concludes with a declaration, made under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information.

Financial HardshipCourt CostsAppeal BondIndigencyPublic BenefitsLegal AidIncome StatementExpense StatementDeclarationTexas Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Glass

The petitioner, a paternal grandmother, sought foster care payments for three children who had been in her custody since July 30, 1988, following their placement by the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS initially provided payments until July 29, 1988, but subsequently denied further funding, asserting that the foster care placement had automatically terminated. The court, in reviewing the Commissioner's determination, held that under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (Social Services Law § 374-a), DSS, as the sending agency, retained jurisdiction and financial responsibility for the children. The court found that the voluntary 'discharge' of the children to the grandmother was an insufficient basis to terminate DSS's ongoing supervisory and financial responsibilities. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying foster care payments was annulled, and the petition seeking such payments was granted.

Foster careInterstate CompactSocial Services LawCPLR article 78Judicial reviewAnnulmentChild custodyFinancial responsibilityAgency responsibilityNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,798 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