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. AHM 106897 AHM 106895 AHM 108789
Regular
Feb 05, 2008

VERONICA ORTIZ vs. DOWNEY AREA RECYCLING TRANSFER, CIGA by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, in liquidation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns State Compensation Insurance Fund's (SCIF) challenge to an arbitrator's decision granting contribution rights to CIGA. The arbitrator awarded CIGA $43,418.27 in contribution, which SCIF disputes based on incorrect facts and law. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the arbitrator's decision, remanding the matter for findings on injury and common body parts to determine contribution entitlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASCIFContributionReconsiderationArbitrator's FindingsCompromise and ReleaseThomas findingAOE/COEPost-termination defense
References
2
Case No. ADJ1296466 (AHM 0106897) ADJ2492989 (AHM 0106895 ADJ3196303 (AHM 0108789)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

VERONICA ORTIZ vs. DOWNEY AREA RECYCLING TRANSFER, CIGA by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, in liquidation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the State Compensation Insurance Fund's (SCIF) petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, as the Board had previously granted reconsideration and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board also found that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) had cured any verification defects in its petition. SCIF's arguments regarding the WCA's denial of contribution and SCIF's coverage as "other insurance" were also addressed and found unpersuasive in light of the procedural dismissal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDowney Area Recycling TransferCIGASuperior NationalState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation ArbitratorContributionLack of Verification
References
2
Case No. AHM 0106897
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

VERONICA ORTIZ vs. DOWNEY AREA RECYCLING & TRANSFER, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION By INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES For SUPERIOR NATIONAL, In Liquidation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's reconsideration request, rescinding the arbitrator's order denying contribution. The Board found the arbitrator misinterpreted the effect of a "Thomas" finding in a Compromise and Release agreement. Therefore, the case is remanded to the arbitrator to properly consider evidence regarding injury on March 5, 2002, the post-termination defense, and to create an adequate record for decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGACalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationContributionReconsiderationThomas v. Sports ChaletCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryMedical Reports
References
3
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06183 [120 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

McDonald v. Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.

The plaintiff, Andrew McDonald, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that the defendant established a prima facie defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found that the defendant and the plaintiff's employer, Winter Bros. Waste Systems, Inc., operate as a single integrated entity, thereby extending workers' compensation protection to the defendant as an alter ego of the employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this defense, leading to the proper dismissal of the complaint.

Alter Ego DoctrineWorkers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityIntegrated EntityAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTriable Issue of FactRespondent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & L BIRCHWOOD, LLC v. LFC Capital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, S & L Birchwood, LLC and S & L Birchwood Realty, LLC, filed a breach of contract action against LFC Capital, Inc., following a dispute over a medical equipment lease. LFC alleged default, and S&L initiated a declaratory judgment action in New York state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court. LFC moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, citing a forum-selection clause in their agreement. The court analyzed the enforceability of the clause, determining it to be mandatory due to language of 'irrevocable submission' to Illinois jurisdiction, despite not explicitly using 'must' or 'may'. Consequently, the court denied LFC's motion to dismiss but granted the request for transfer, concluding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York and that transfer to the Northern District of Illinois was warranted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).

Forum selection clauseBreach of contractDiversity jurisdictionTransfer of venueDismissal motionIllinois contract lawNew York jurisdictionMedical equipment leasingMandatory clause interpretationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)
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

Claim of Lauritano v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant suffered a work-related heart attack in 1992, received benefits, and the case was closed in 1997. After another heart attack and surgery in 1999, the claim was reopened in 2001. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found it was not a stale claim, but the Board reversed, transferring liability to the Special Fund. The Special Fund argued that employer payments for lost time in 1999-2000 constituted advance payments of compensation, precluding transfer. However, the court affirmed the Board's determination that these payments, made pursuant to a general sick leave plan, did not qualify as advance payments of compensation under § 25-a, thus supporting the transfer of liability to the Special Fund.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aStale Claim DoctrineAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave BenefitsLiability TransferHeart Attack InjuryReopened CaseAppellate Review of Board DecisionSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

Claim of Khomitch v. Crotched Mountain Community

Claimant was injured in 2004 and received compensation through February 2007. In 2011, she sought reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages, leading to a stipulation where the carrier paid $4,750 for medical and transportation expenses (M&T). The carrier then sought to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued the M&T payment was disguised compensation to improperly trigger the liability transfer. The Board Panel, after remittal, concluded that the Special Fund has standing to litigate if the payment was an advance payment of compensation. The Board rescinded the liability transfer to the Special Fund, without prejudice, pending further evidence. The employer and carrier appealed this decision, which was ultimately affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BoardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aMedical and Transportation ExpensesAdvance Payment of CompensationStanding to LitigateClosed Case ReopeningIndemnity BenefitsBoard Panel Decision
References
7
Case No. 12-12900-scc
Regular Panel Decision

In re Patriot Coal Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses motions to transfer the Chapter 11 cases of Patriot Coal Corporation and its ninety-eight affiliated debtors from the Southern District of New York. The Debtors established venue in New York by forming two New York entities solely for that purpose shortly before their filing. While acknowledging no bad faith, the Court found that this "literal compliance" violated the spirit and purpose of the venue statute. The motions to transfer were granted, but not to the Southern District of West Virginia as sought by several movants. Instead, the Court ordered the transfer of the cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, citing the location of Patriot's corporate headquarters, records, management, and its accessibility for a broader range of stakeholders including retirees in the Illinois Basin.

BankruptcyChapter 11Venue TransferCorporate RestructuringCoal Mining IndustryAffiliate Venue RuleSubstance Over Form DoctrineJudicial EconomyCreditor InterestsLabor Union
References
27
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 968 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