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. ADJ9708967
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

DAVID SHEA vs. CITY OF VERNON FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed David Shea's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an intermediate procedural or evidentiary ruling. The Board also denied Shea's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which was adopted by the Board, detailed why these petitions were unfounded. Ultimately, the Board upheld the WCJ's decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ6951586
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

MICHAEL MICHAELSON (Deceased) vs. JF SHEA, AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order regarding a deceased worker's settlement. The Petitioner, Riverside County Department of Child Support Services, sought to satisfy a child support lien from the settlement allocated to dependents. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Labor Code §4700 dictates that only accrued and unpaid compensation is payable to dependents, and a child support lien under Labor Code §4903(e) attaches only to such benefits. As there were no accrued benefits owed to the deceased applicant, the child support lien could not be satisfied from the death benefit settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportRiverside County Department of Child Support ServicesState Bar NumbersWCAB Rule 10498SanctionsADJ6951586DeceasedJF Shea
References
1
Case No. ADJ3002774
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

ROWLAND COX vs. J.F. SHEA CONSTRUCTION, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by Rowland Cox against J.F. Shea Construction, Inc. and its insurer. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. No specific grounds for the denial or details of the underlying case are provided in this order.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJ.F. Shea ConstructionAmerican Home AssuranceChartis ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeADJ3002774LAO 0882805Anaheim District OfficeDenying Removal
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08009
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

Giannas v. 100 3rd Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ioannis Giannas, allegedly sustained personal injuries while working on a renovation project, claiming he fell from a scaffold that shifted. He sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against 100 3rd Avenue Corp. and JF Contracting Corp., and granted JF's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. The Supreme Court also denied Rockledge Scaffolding Corp.'s motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim against it and its contractual indemnification cross-claim against JF. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that JF lacked the requisite supervisory control for Labor Law liability. The court further affirmed the denial of Rockledge's motions due to a triable issue of fact concerning negligent scaffold installation, which precluded summary judgment on both the common-law negligence claim and the contractual indemnification cross-claim.

scaffolding accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)common-law negligencecontractual indemnificationconstruction manager liabilitysummary judgmenttriable issue of factagencysupervisory control
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nautilus Insurance v. Matthew David Events, Ltd.

Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Matthew David Events (MDE) in a personal injury action brought by Timothy Shea. Shea, an employee of a subcontractor hired by MDE, was injured while working at an event planned by MDE. Nautilus disclaimed coverage due to MDE's failure to provide timely notice and an employee exclusion in the policy. The motion court denied Nautilus's summary judgment, finding the employee exclusion ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, holding that the employee exclusion, which broadly defined 'employee' to include those 'contracted for' the insured, clearly applied to Shea, an employee of MDE's subcontractor. The court concluded that Nautilus had met its burden in demonstrating the exclusion's applicability.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory Judgment ActionEmployee Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationSubcontractor Employee InjuryTimely Notice ProvisionSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate Court DecisionCommercial General Liability PolicyBodily Injury Claim
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Schneider

Plaintiff Highland Capital Management, L.P. initiated an action against Leonard Schneider, Leslie Schneider, Scott Schneider, Susan Schneider (the 'Schneiders'), and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP (JGPC) for breach of contract and tortious interference related to a promissory note transaction. The defendants moved in limine to exclude the testimony of Highland's proposed expert witness, Sean F. O’Shea. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling O’Shea’s testimony inadmissible. The judge found that O'Shea's report contained improper legal conclusions, factual narratives without personal knowledge, speculation on parties' intent, and irrelevant predictions about criminal prosecution. Additionally, Highland's requests to defer the motion or to supplement the expert report were denied.

Breach of ContractTortious InterferencePromissory NotesSecurities FraudInsider TradingExpert TestimonyMotion in LimineAdmissibility of EvidenceFederal Rules of EvidenceDaubert Standard
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2008

Schreiber v. Krehbiel

Plaintiffs James M. Schreiber and Shea M. Schreiber sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Defendants, including Sadie L. Krehbiel, moved for summary judgment, contending neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The Supreme Court initially granted the motion in part, dismissing the plaintiff wife's permanent loss of use claim. On appeal, the order was modified by granting summary judgment to defendants for James M. Schreiber's permanent loss of use claim and by dismissing Shea M. Schreiber's complaint entirely. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding James M. Schreiber's other alleged injury categories, noting defendants' failure to sufficiently demonstrate pre-existing conditions or lack of exacerbation by the accident.

Personal injuryMotor vehicle accidentSummary judgmentSerious injuryPermanent loss of usePermanent consequential limitationSignificant limitation90/180-day ruleMedical examinationCausation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glover v. City of New York

This case involves plaintiffs Eloise Glover and Add Armstead against the City of New York, Thomas Shea, and Walter Scott (police officers) following the alleged shooting death of Cleophas Glover, Eloise's son. Plaintiffs brought federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims including wrongful death, slander, and assault. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, rejecting arguments of res judicata and collateral estoppel based on a prior administrative decision. The City's cross-motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims against it was granted, as municipalities are not liable under this statute. However, the court denied Shea and Scott's cross-motions to dismiss the § 1983 claims and state law claims against them, and also denied the City's cross-motion to sever and dismiss the state law claims, opting to exercise pendent jurisdiction for judicial economy.

Civil RightsSection 1983Wrongful DeathSlanderAssaultSummary JudgmentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPendent JurisdictionMunicipal Liability
References
14
Case No. 05-19154-jf
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Bridge to Life, Inc.

The Bridge To Life, Inc. ("Bridge") filed a Chapter 11 petition for the second time, despite a prior dismissal with prejudice. The court sua sponte dismissed the second case, leading Bridge to file a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, a stay pending appeal. Bridge argued that the bar to refiling no longer applied as the underlying state court action against it had been dismissed. The court denied Bridge's motion, ruling that the refiling violated a prior injunction and constituted a misuse of Chapter 11. The court found that Bridge's Chapter 11 filings were primarily litigation tactics to gain advantage in a two-party dispute with William Lucadamo and to avoid enforcement of a sanctions judgment, rather than for legitimate reorganization purposes. The court emphasized that Chapter 11 should not be used to frustrate non-bankruptcy forums or to avoid supersedeas bonds.

BankruptcyChapter 11Motion for ReconsiderationStay Pending AppealBad Faith FilingLitigation TacticTwo-Party DisputePrior DismissalInjunction ViolationSanctions Judgment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shea v. Icelandair

A WCLJ found a claimant had a mild permanent partial disability but voluntarily retired, authorizing medical treatment without lost wage awards. The carrier disputed medical and transportation expenses, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 agreement of $17,500 for claimant's expenses, including a $2,200 counsel fee. The WCLJ and Workers’ Compensation Board denied the counsel fee, arguing medical/travel awards are not 'compensation' subject to a lien. The appellate court reversed, broadly interpreting 'compensation' to include medical expenses to ensure representation availability for injured employees. The court remitted the case for the Board to exercise its discretion in reviewing the requested counsel fee.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationLienPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 19 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