Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8764706

Regular

Dec 28, 2018

JOSE GARCIA vs. THE SHADY CANYON GOLF CLUB

This case concerns a lien claimant, California Imaging Solutions (CIS), seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Judge's decision regarding payment for services. The initial decision awarded CIS $1,137.33, of which $814.40 had been paid, leaving a balance of $322.93. CIS argues the defendant waived objections due to non-compliant Explanation of Review (EOR) forms. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the initial order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found issues with the WCJ's reasoning regarding defendant's objections and the sufficiency of EORs under Labor Code section 4603.3.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderExplanation of Review (EOR)Labor Code Section 4603.3Medical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimReasonable and Necessary ServicesBill Review Expert

References

Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818

Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date

References

Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)

Regular

Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Episode USA, Inc.

Episode USA, Inc., a debtor in chapter 11 bankruptcy, guaranteed a non-debtor affiliate's lease. The affiliate defaulted, leading the landlord, L.H. Charney Associates, to file a claim against Episode. Episode objected to the claim, seeking to cap the unsecured portion under § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code and expunge the administrative priority claim. The court sustained Episode's objection, ruling that the § 502(b)(6) cap applies to debtor-guarantors and that the administrative priority claim was not justified as Episode received no benefit from the lease. However, the court rejected Episode's argument for a reduction of the unsecured claim based on mitigation, citing New York law.

BankruptcyLease GuaranteeLandlord-Tenant LawClaim ObjectionSection 502(b)(6)Administrative Priority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionUnsecured ClaimsLease TerminationGuarantor Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

This memorandum decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses an adversary proceeding where John S. Pereira, the Chapter 7 trustee, sought to deny the debtor, Ginger Young, a discharge in bankruptcy. The Trustee raised objections under three sections of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging the debtor failed to keep adequate records, knowingly withheld information, and could not satisfactorily explain the loss of assets totaling approximately $140,000 from a property sale and IRA/pension withdrawals. Judge Elizabeth S. Stong considered the debtor's defense of being a victim of severe domestic and financial abuse, supported by expert testimony from Laura Boyd, MSW. The court found the debtor's explanation credible and justified her inability to produce complete financial records and account for the asset disposition due to the traumatic circumstances. Consequently, all of the Trustee's objections to the Debtor's discharge were denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility

References

Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization

References

Case No. ADJ9531226

Regular

Dec 04, 2018

JULICES MARTINEZ vs. SUN VALLEY GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The lien claimant argued that the defendant's explanations of review (EORs) were deficient and did not trigger the lien claimant's obligation to request a second review. However, the Board found that the defendant's EORs substantially complied with statutory requirements and provided sufficient guidance to the lien claimant. Because the lien claimant failed to request a second review within the statutory timeframe, their objections to the billing were deemed waived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantExplanation of Review (EOR)Labor Code Section 4622Medical-legal ExpensesContested ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Director Rule 9794Second ReviewBill Review

References

Case No. ADJ8949526, ADJ8672351

Regular

Nov 05, 2018

ALFREDO ARGUETA vs. LA BREA DINING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the defendant was not liable for further payment on the lien claimant's invoices. The lien claimant argued the defendant's Explanation of Review (EOR) was deficient and thus they were not obligated to pursue a second bill review. The Board found this argument inconsistent with Labor Code section 4622, which requires timely objection to denied amounts, and adopted the WCJ's report. A dissenting opinion argued that a deficient EOR negates the requirement for a second bill review.

WCABLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationExplanation of Review (EOR)Labor Code Section 4603.3Labor Code Section 4622Second Bill ReviewWCAB Rule 10451.1Perez v. Colorama Wholesale NurseryMedical-legal billing disputes

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,568 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8764706

Regular

Dec 28, 2018

JOSE GARCIA vs. THE SHADY CANYON GOLF CLUB

References

Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818

Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date

References

Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)

Regular

Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Episode USA, Inc.

BankruptcyLease GuaranteeLandlord-Tenant LawClaim ObjectionSection 502(b)(6)Administrative Priority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionUnsecured ClaimsLease TerminationGuarantor Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility

References

Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization

References

Case No. ADJ9531226

Regular

Dec 04, 2018

JULICES MARTINEZ vs. SUN VALLEY GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

References

Case No. ADJ8949526, ADJ8672351

Regular

Nov 05, 2018

ALFREDO ARGUETA vs. LA BREA DINING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,568 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.