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

In Re McLean Industries, Inc.

This case concerns U.S. Lines, Inc. (now Janus Industries), along with Mclean Industries, Inc. and First Colony Farms, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), and the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (collectively, the "Movants"). They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1986 and had a plan of reorganization confirmed in 1989, which relied on the preservation of net operating losses (NOLs). After the IRS announced proposed regulations in 1990 that could challenge the use of NOLs if a plan's principal purpose was tax evasion, the Movants sought a court order declaring that tax evasion was not the principal purpose of their plan. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) opposed, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the Movants' motion, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(d), only a governmental unit can initiate a tax avoidance motion, and the issue of tax liability based on proposed regulations was not a concrete controversy.

BankruptcyChapter 11Tax AvoidanceNet Operating Losses (NOLs)IRS RegulationsPlan ConfirmationPost-Confirmation MotionDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernmental Unit
References
4
Case No. ADJ10233708
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

ARTURO CHAVEZ vs. PURPOSE DRIVEN PERSONNEL, HARTFORD, COUNTRYWIDE PAYROLL, NORTH BAY DISTRIBUTION, COMPWEST, H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, TRAVELERS

This case concerns the employment status of applicant Arturo Chavez and the resulting workers' compensation liability. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings of fact regarding employment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The primary dispute revolves around whether Purpose Driven Personnel was applicant's employer, given its reliance on Countrywide for payroll and workers' compensation insurance. The Board emphasized the need for further development of evidence, particularly regarding employment agreements between potential employers, to clarify the employer-employee relationship and subsequent insurance coverage.

Special employerGeneral employerDual employmentJoint and several liabilityLabor Code section 3602(d)PEOEmployee leasingService agreementWorkers' compensation insuranceFindings of Fact
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Palazzolo v. Dutchess County

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left arm in July 2000. Although no lost wages were claimed initially, diagnostic tests were authorized, and issues of permanency and average weekly wages remained unresolved, with a directive for the employer to provide payroll records. In 2013, after claimant sought further medical treatment, the employer requested to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing the statutory time limits had elapsed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, finding the case was never truly closed due to outstanding issues and unfulfilled directives. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being considered truly closed for the purpose of shifting liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferCase ClosureOutstanding IssuesPermanency DeterminationAverage Weekly WagesPayroll RecordsAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Leide v. Dowling

The petitioner challenged the termination of homemaker services by the City Commissioner, a decision upheld by the State Commissioner. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated the Commissioners' determination, deeming it arbitrary and capricious, and issued a permanent injunction. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the Commissioners' determination, and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court found that the agency's interpretation of its regulations regarding homemaker services, which were being used for long-term child care and home chores contrary to their intended short-term purpose and skill development, was not irrational or unreasonable. Furthermore, the issuance of a permanent injunction was deemed an extraordinary remedy, especially since the regulations mandate six-month reviews of such services.

Administrative LawCPLR Article 78Homemaker ServicesAgency DeterminationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousRegulatory InterpretationPermanent InjunctionSocial Services LawChild Care
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Novak v. Del Savio

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The injured plaintiff, Michael Novak, an electrician, was struck by a falling pipe while working on a ladder. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability against the building owner (304 W 115 LLC) and general contractor (Hudson Meridian Construction Group, LLC). However, the appellate court reversed this decision. It found that the accident did not fall within the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) because the pipe was not being hoisted or secured, nor did it require securing for its purpose, thus not involving the specific gravity-related hazards covered by the statute. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyGravity-Related AccidentOwner Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
3
Case No. ADJ6754663
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

RUBEN CASTILLO vs. J. JOHNSON & COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured within six months of employment, raising a claim for psychiatric injury. Labor Code Section 3208.3(d) generally bars such claims unless the injury results from a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition. The Appeals Board, in a majority decision, found the applicant's injury from a backhoe bucket was not extraordinary, thus reversing the WCJ's finding and barring the psychiatric claim. A dissenting opinion argued that being struck by a backhoe bucket is not a regular or routine incident and should qualify as a sudden and extraordinary event.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment rulereconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJReport and Recommendationbackhoe bucketworkplace violence
References
4
Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,401 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