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 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. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. ADJ4364152
Regular
Oct 14, 2008

PATRICIA A. NEWTON vs. SBC PACIFIC BELL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior July 30, 2008 Joint Findings and Order because the applicant's attorney informed the Board that the case was being settled. The case is remanded to the trial level, where the WCJ will either re-issue the original decision if settlement is not finalized within 30 days, or proceed with settlement approval or other appropriate action if settlement papers are timely filed. This order allows the parties to finalize their settlement while preserving their rights.

ReconsiderationRescinded OrderRemandedTrial LevelSettlementTentative SettlementWCJJoint Findings and OrderFinalized SettlementAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Chop't Creative Salad Co.

This case involves delivery workers (Angel Ortiz, Ored Trujillo, Antonio Fuentes, Isaac Barreto) who sued Chop’t Creative Salad Company LLC and its principals (Colin McCabe, Tony Shure, Nicholas Marsh) under the FLSA and NYLL for wage violations. The parties reached an $800,000 settlement through mediation, which the court preliminarily approved. This memorandum and order addresses motions for final class action settlement approval, service awards for named plaintiffs, and attorneys' fees. The court granted final approval of the settlement, but denied the requested service awards, finding insufficient demonstrable risks or extraordinary effort by the named plaintiffs. The court granted attorneys' fees and costs, but reduced the requested percentage from 33.3% to 20% ($160,000) of the settlement fund, citing excessive and duplicative work and a lack of complexity in the case.

Wage and HourFLSANYLLTip Credit LitigationClass Action SettlementAttorneys' Fees CalculationService Awards DenialLabor Law ViolationsEmployment DisputeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madaffari v. Wilmod Co.

Plaintiff Madaffari, an employee of Triangle, was injured in an accident involving defective scaffolding. He initiated an action against Ethen and Meral Celelei, the property owners, and Wilmod Company, Inc., responsible for anchoring the scaffold. Wilmod subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Triangle Aluminum Products Co., Inc., and Borneo Sumatra Trading Co., the supplier of the defective nails, filed a cross-complaint against Triangle. A tentative settlement was reached between Madaffari, Triangle, and Celelei, which involved a payment from Triangle's carrier to Madaffari and general releases for Triangle. However, Wilmod and Borneo intended to continue their actions against Triangle. Triangle moved for summary judgment based on General Obligations Law § 15-108, which governs the effect of releases on contribution among tortfeasors. The court, treating the tentative settlement as finalized, applied the principles of GOL § 15-108, noting that it logically extends to settlements between a plaintiff and a third-party defendant, especially given that Workers' Compensation Law initially barred Madaffari from suing Triangle directly. The court held that remaining tortfeasors are entitled to credit for the settling tortfeasor's equitable share, and a released tortfeasor is relieved from contribution liability. Therefore, Triangle's motion for summary judgment was converted into a motion for an order of discontinuance with prejudice and granted, conditional upon the finalization of the settlement. The court also clarified that while Triangle would not physically participate in the continued trial, its involvement could be presented to the jury for culpability apportionment.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintCross-ComplaintGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108TortfeasorsContributionIndemnitySettlementDiscontinuance With PrejudiceApportionment of Culpability
References
2
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

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas Graff against United Collection Bureau, Inc. under the FDCPA. The parties sought final certification of a class action and approval of a cy pres settlement. The proposed settlement included payments to a public interest organization, the representative plaintiff, administration costs, and attorneys' fees. However, one class member objected to various aspects, including the scope of the release and the class's geographic scope. The court ultimately denied final approval of the settlement, citing concerns with the broad release, the unexplained expansion of the class size without commensurate benefit, and the exclusive cy pres remedy, while upholding the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. The court also modified the class to be limited solely to the New York class.

Class Action SettlementFDCPA LitigationMagistrate Judge JurisdictionCy Pres RemedyDebt Collection PracticesRule 23(e) ReviewProcedural FairnessSubstantive FairnessScope of ReleaseClass Definition
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,320 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