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

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 17-09006
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2017

General Motors LLC v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)

Plaintiff General Motors LLC initiated an adversary proceeding against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and its trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that its state court action in Ohio against the Manville Trust was not enjoined by the channeling injunction from the Johns-Manville Corporation's chapter 11 reorganization plan. GM's Ohio action aimed to hold the Manville Trust liable under Ohio Revised Code § 4123.931 for an employee's widow's failure to notify GM of asbestos settlements. The court exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the Manville Trust's abstention arguments. It found that GM's claim against the Manville Trust, whether characterized as subrogation or contribution, constituted an "Other Asbestos Obligation" and was therefore explicitly barred by the Manville Plan's channeling injunction and the Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP). Consequently, the court enjoined GM from pursuing its Ohio Action against the Manville Trust.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcy InjunctionChanneling InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentManville TrustTrust Distribution ProceduresOhio LawSubrogation ClaimsContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Johns-Manville Corp.

This case involves appeals from a District Court's Opinion and Order concerning a Bankruptcy Court's Clarifying Order and Findings related to the Johns-Manville Corporation's asbestos bankruptcy. The original 1986 injunction barred direct suits against Manville's insurers, including Travelers. Subsequently, various plaintiff groups filed direct actions against Travelers, leading to settlements that the Bankruptcy Court approved. Objecting Insurers and Objecting Claimants appealed this approval, challenging the Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the fairness of the settlement. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enjoin direct action suits and approve the settlements, considering these suits as indirect attempts to recover from Manville's insurance policies. However, the District Court vacated the "gate-keeping" provision of the Clarifying Order, finding it exceeded the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction. The motions to dismiss the appeals were denied.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcyInsurance LawDirect Action SuitsSettlement AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionBar OrderJudgment ReductionDue ProcessChapter 11 Reorganization
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1983

Claim of Fallon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

John Fallon filed a claim for compensation against his employer, Johns-Manville, alleging pulmonary asbestosis from 38 years of asbestos exposure. He later died of carcinoma of the liver, with asbestosis noted as a contributing cause. His widow filed for death benefits. Initially, an administrative law judge disallowed the claims, finding no total disability from asbestosis and an unrelated cause of death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling that Fallon's disability and death were causally related to asbestosis. The employer and its insurer appealed this reversal, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support it despite conflicting medical expert testimonies.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestosisPulmonary AsbestosisCarcinoma of LiverCausally Related DeathWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Disagreement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johns v. AMC Beauty Salon

Petitioner Angelo Johns claimed an unapproved sublease from AMC Beauty Salon for psychic office space at 465 Lexington Avenue, New York. AMC surrendered the entire premises to Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) on June 2, 2010, representing no other occupants were present. Johns, who paid cash rent to AMC and avoided SGI detection, returned from vacation to find the premises locked. The court found Johns's testimony not fully credible regarding his regular presence and SGI's knowledge of the sublease. SGI credibly testified they were unaware of the sublease and saw no evidence of Johns's occupancy during a walk-through. Concluding Johns purposely hid his occupancy and SGI had no knowledge of it, the court dismissed the petition.

Landlord-TenantSubleaseVoluntary SurrenderOccupancy RightsUnapproved SubleaseCommercial LeasePsychic BusinessEvictionNew York LawCredibility Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

Holliswood Care Center appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees against it in a guardianship proceeding for John T. The Supreme Court had initially found John T. competent but awarded fees to the petitioner, temporary guardian, and Mental Hygiene Legal Service, citing Holliswood's "reprehensible actions" in detaining Mr. T. Holliswood argued it was not given notice that the guardianship hearing would determine attorney's fees against it and was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence regarding its actions, which it claimed were based on safety concerns, not Mr. T.'s competency. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the Supreme Court improperly proceeded with the hearing and improvidently awarded attorneys' fees without proper notice and opportunity to be heard for Holliswood. Furthermore, the court found that the award of attorneys' fees against Holliswood was not authorized by Mental Hygiene Law article 81 nor justified under common law exceptions.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology
References
2
Case No. ADJ3093533 (MON 259690) ADJ676332 (MON 257523)
Regular
May 15, 2009

PEARLENE POWELL vs. SO. CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM; ST. JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied Kaiser's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's permanent disability was 100% and not subject to apportionment to St. John's employment. St. John's petition for reconsideration was granted in part to correct a procedural error. The Board amended the prior decision to reinstate the applicant's January 11, 2005 Amended Findings, Award and Order, confirming the prior findings.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidencePermanent DisabilityReconsiderationPetitionFindings and OrderAmended FindingsAwardOrder
References
1
Case No. No. 38
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2019

The People v. John Giuca

John Giuca was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and second-degree criminal weapon possession. His appeal, based on a CPL 440.10 motion, alleged Brady violations and prosecutorial misconduct concerning a jailhouse informant (JA). Giuca claimed the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material related to JA's pending burglary case, drug treatment violations, and the prosecutor's involvement in JA's court appearances. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's denial of Giuca's motion. The Court found no reasonable possibility that the undisclosed evidence would have altered the verdict, citing extensive impeachment material already available and strong evidence of guilt.

Murder convictionBrady violationImpeachment evidenceJailhouse informantProsecutorial misconductDue processCriminal procedureCPL 440.10 motionMaterialityTacit agreement
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 895 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