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

Claim of Arena v. Crown Asphalt Co.

Thomas Arena (decedent) sustained a work-related foot injury in 1980, leading to workers' compensation benefits and subsequent renal failure. Decedent and his wife (claimant) filed a third-party medical malpractice action against treating physicians and the hospital, which was settled in 1988 through a structured settlement. A stipulation between the carrier and decedent outlined the carrier's offset credit against decedent's workers' compensation claim and reserved rights against future death benefits claims, but claimant was not a signatory. After decedent's death in 1993, claimant filed for death benefits, prompting the carrier to seek an offset credit from the third-party settlement proceeds. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the carrier entitled to a credit, but later reversed itself, ruling against any credit. The appeals court determined that the carrier sufficiently preserved its offset rights through a general release signed by both claimant and decedent. However, it found no clear agreement on the specific offset amount in the stipulation or settlement that applied to claimant's death benefits. Consequently, the Board's decision of zero credit was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a factual determination of the precise credit amount.

Offset CreditThird-Party SettlementDeath Benefits ClaimRenal FailureMedical MalpracticeStipulation AgreementGeneral ReleaseWaiver of RightsStructured SettlementApportionment of Damages
References
12
Case No. ADJ8659253
Regular
Dec 18, 2014

LESTER WHITE vs. WASTE CONNECTIONS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE c/o ESIS

This case involves a dispute over a third-party credit in a workers' compensation claim. The defendant sought reconsideration of an award that denied them credit against future medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award. The Board ruled that the defendant is entitled to apply their remaining third-party credit of $6,945.37 against both future permanent disability indemnity and future medical treatment, as employer credit for third-party recovery is not discretionary.

Third-party creditFuture medical treatmentPermanent disability indemnityReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code sections 3858 and 3861ApportionmentMaximum medical improvementPrimary treating physicianSummary Rating Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Beth V. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Claimant, a youth division aide, suffered severe injuries including physical assault, rape, and kidnapping during work, leading to established workers' compensation benefits and a classification of permanent partial disability. She subsequently reached a $650,000 settlement in a federal civil rights action against her employer and co-employees for the same injuries. The workers' compensation carrier waived its lien for past benefits but asserted a right to a credit for future payments against the settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision, ruling in favor of the carrier's credit, finding the settlement covered the same injuries for which workers' compensation benefits were awarded. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the carrier's entitlement to a credit against the third-party settlement recovery.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementCredit Against RecoveryLienFuture BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityPTSDRapeCivil Rights ClaimFederal Lawsuit
References
4
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Capital Bus. Credit LLC v. Tailgate Clothing Co., Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
Case No. ADJ4549159
Regular
Jul 05, 2011

ROCCO GRIMALDI vs. CITY OF FULLERTON, ADMINSURE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn a finding that the defendant was entitled to a credit for overpayment of permanent disability indemnity against the applicant's future medical treatment. The majority found that awarding the credit was within the WCJ's discretion, despite the applicant's arguments of inequity. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing that the overpayment resulted from the defendant's denial of medical treatment and the applicant should not be penalized with a credit against future medical care.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityFuture Medical TreatmentCredit for OverpaymentInequityCompensable ConsequenceQualified Medical ExaminerAgreed Medical Examiner
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Plaintiff Orrin Anderson, a debtor, had his credit card debt with Credit One discharged in bankruptcy, but the debt remained on his credit report as 'charged off.' Anderson reopened his bankruptcy case and filed a class action complaint against Credit One for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. Credit One moved to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Bankruptcy Court denied. Credit One appealed the denial to compel arbitration as of right and sought leave to appeal the denials to strike class allegations and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied Credit One's motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction or interlocutory appeal for the additional issues.

Bankruptcy Discharge InjunctionClass Action WaiverSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPendent Appellate JurisdictionArbitration AgreementFederal Statutory ClaimsContempt PowerPunitive DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ7309107
Regular
Dec 20, 2011

JENNA VISCUSO vs. PROVIDENT CREDIT UNION

In **Viscuso v. Provident Credit Union**, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a decision filed October 6, 2011. This grant was made due to statutory time constraints and an initial review indicating further study of factual and legal issues was necessary. The WCAB aims to gain a complete understanding of the record to issue a just and reasoned decision after reconsideration. All future communications are to be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersSan FranciscoCalifornia
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,284 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