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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dolin, Thomas & Solomon LLP v. United States Department of Labor

The law firm Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the United States Department of Labor (DOL) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), alleging wrongful withholding of documents. These documents pertained to DOL Wage and Hour Division Opinion Letters FLSA 2007-1, FLSA 2007-2, and FLSA 2007-4, along with related requests and internal communications. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court partially granted and partially denied both motions, ordering the DOL to produce specific categories of documents, such as enclosure letters, status updates, and generalized procedural communications, for which privilege claims were deemed insufficient. However, the court upheld the DOL's right to withhold draft opinion letters and communications containing specific legal advice, recognizing these as protected by deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

FOIAFreedom of Information ActSummary JudgmentDeliberative Process PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument DisclosureAgency RecordsDOL Opinion LettersGovernment TransparencyExemptions
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. ADJ2754082 (ANA 0368835)
Regular
Jul 22, 2010

SPENCER SULLIVAN vs. SULLIVAN HEALTH CARE ENTERPRISES, INC., GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, TENET/FOUNTAIN VALLEY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of its prior decision affirming a finding that the applicant, Spencer Sullivan, did not sustain an industrial neck injury. This action was prompted by applicant's attorney submitting a letter requesting rescission of the decision due to a pending Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement. Although the WCAB had no record of a prior defense letter regarding settlement, it recognized the C&R's existence. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded its June 23, 2010 decision and the WCJ's May 5, 2009 decision, returning the case to the trial level for the WCJ to review and act upon the C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseNunc Pro TuncRescinded DecisionTrial Level ProceedingsRegistered NurseCumulative TraumaGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314) ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316) ADJ460036 (GOL 0101615)
Regular
Dec 12, 2011

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injuries while employed as a zookeeper for Neverland Valley Ranch and other entities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the trial judge erred by excluding evidence related to employment agreements under the parol evidence rule, which is relevant to determining employer status. Further development of the record is required to properly address the applicant's employment relationships with the defendant entities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchMichael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
0
Case No. ADJ7937089
Regular
Jun 18, 2019

SHUPELLA BROWN vs. CRAZY HORSE NIGHT CLUB, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award due to conflicting information regarding the defendant's insurance status. The Board adopted the WCJ's findings on the applicant's industrial injury and permanent disability, finding the employer did not meet its burden to prove the six-month employment requirement. However, the WCAB remanded the case to determine the correct entity liable for compensation due to the inconsistent self-insured status disclosures. The applicant was awarded 88% permanent disability, medical treatment reimbursement, and attorney fees.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJAOE/COEBurden of ProofAffirmative DefenseLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Credibility DeterminationsPermissibly Self-Insured
References
6
Case No. ADJ13900666
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

German Renteria Pina vs. Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, Da Vinci Schools

German Renteria Pina, the applicant, sustained a specific injury while employed by Miguel Diaz dba Brother Landscape, an uninsured entity. Da Vinci Schools, a permissibly self-insured entity, was also named as a defendant. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that Pina was an employee of Diaz and not Da Vinci, arguing errors in employment burden of proof and insufficient evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was made because the record was deemed incomplete to adequately determine Diaz's independent contractor status or the applicability of licensing requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMiguel Diaz dba Brother LandscapeDa Vinci SchoolsAdjudication NumberPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJBurden of ProofUltimate Hirer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Degale-Selier v. Preferred Management & Leasing Corp.

This legal excerpt examines the concept of dual employment, focusing on general and special employers under Workers’ Compensation Law. It reiterates that immunity extends to all employers when a plaintiff accepts workers’ compensation benefits, regardless of the corporate relationship between entities. The core issue revolves around defining a "special employee" and establishing this status as a matter of law. In the presented case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment, as they failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was a special employee of Preferred Management & Leasing Corp. or that Preferred was an alter ego or joint venture with the plaintiff's employer, 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc. The decision emphasizes the factual nature of special employment status and the burden of proof on the moving party.

Dual EmploymentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSummary JudgmentAlter EgoJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pringle v. AC Bodyworks & Sons, LLC

The administrators of John Lee Dean's estate, after receiving workers' compensation benefits for his work-related death, commenced a wrongful death action against AC Bodyworks & Sons, LLC, the owner of the truck that caused his death. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred by the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, asserting it was a dissolved predecessor entity to the actual employer, AC Bodyworks & Sons, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court determining the motion was premature due to a lack of discovery regarding the relationship between the two entities and the transfer of assets, leaving questions of fact regarding the defendant's continued operation and potential alter ego status with the employer.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentPremature MotionDiscovery DisclosureAlter EgoWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityVehicle OwnershipDissolved Entity
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00139 [212 AD3d 972]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2023

Matter of Ceja v. Manetta Enters., Inc.

Claimant Pablo Figueroa Ceja filed for workers' compensation benefits after being injured while working for Manetta Enterprises, Inc. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) disputed coverage, claiming policy cancellation for nonpayment. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found SIF liable, ruling that SIF failed to strictly adhere to Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) by not sending a separate cancellation notice to Manetta, despite sharing an address with a related entity, Manco Enterprises of NY, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, emphasizing the statutory requirement for individual notice to each insured entity unless a specific designee is appointed, and rejected SIF's new arguments regarding claimant's employment status as not properly preserved for appeal.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationDual Entity PolicyAdministrative Appeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,806 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