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 Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers

St. Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York, a Chapter 11 debtor, objected to a $48.75 million claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor under the N.Y. WARN Act. The core issue was whether the bankruptcy court or an administrative proceeding by the Department of Labor was the appropriate forum to liquidate this claim. The Department of Labor argued for its administrative proceeding, citing the 'police powers' exception to the automatic stay, and also requested a determination by the Commissioner on certain issues. The Debtors contended the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction due to the proof of claim being filed. The court found it had core jurisdiction to determine the allowance and amount of the claim, declining to defer to another forum, especially given multiple related WARN claims. The court also denied the Debtors' request for an injunction, stating it was not properly brought as an adversary proceeding.

BankruptcyChapter 11WARN ActJurisdictionClaim LiquidationAutomatic StayPolice Powers ExceptionInjunctionCore ProceedingProof of Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1985

National Union Fire Insurance v. Ideal Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning personal jurisdiction over Parthenon Insurance Company. The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to reargue and renew opposition to Parthenon's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew, and subsequently denying Parthenon's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The central legal question is whether Parthenon, a 'captive' insurer for Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and its subsidiaries, which conduct business in New York, is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York State. The court found that enough evidence was presented to warrant discovery to establish jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityParent CompanyInsurance CoverageMotion to DismissDiscoveryAppellate ReviewCPLRCaptive Insurer
References
4
Case No. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Barnett v. Callaway

A claimant, a chef manager, sustained work-related injuries in Florida in May 2011 while working for an uninsured employer. Despite the injury occurring out-of-state, the claimant, a New York resident, filed a workers' compensation claim in New York. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found sufficient contacts with New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) and the employer sought review, which was initially declined for untimeliness/service issues. Subsequently, the Board exercised discretion to address the employer's application on its merits and affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding jurisdiction. The employer then appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion of significant contacts with New York, thus establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionOut-of-state injuryNew York residencyUninsured employerAppellate DivisionBoard discretionSignificant contactsSubject matter jurisdictionChef
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hurley-Pitts v. Diocese of Rock-Ville Centre

The plaintiff, a Director of Development, sued the Church of Saint Mary and the Diocese of Rockville Centre for injuries sustained after slipping on water on church premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the plaintiff to be a special employee and thus barred from recovery under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the appellate court found triable issues of fact regarding whether church employees created or had notice of the hazardous condition that caused the fall. Crucially, the plaintiff had never applied for workers' compensation benefits, and no determination was made by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding coverage. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 issue due to the Board's primary jurisdiction over such matters, and therefore remitted the case to the Workers' Compensation Board for a determination on the availability of benefits.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeePrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNoticeRemittalAppellate ReviewSlip and FallNew York Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ13302605; ADJ15813943
Regular
Mar 07, 2023

MATTHEW WARE vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY C/O BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, reversing the WCJ's order to set the case for a Mandatory Settlement Conference on all issues. The Board found good cause to bifurcate and try the threshold issues of California subject matter and personal jurisdiction first. Bifurcating these jurisdictional issues is deemed more efficient, as a favorable ruling for the defendant would avoid further litigation. This decision prioritizes an expedited resolution of jurisdiction to facilitate the prompt delivery of potential benefits.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceBifurcationJurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceDeclaration of ReadinessDiscoveryGood Cause
References
1
Case No. ADJ7231165
Regular
Jun 18, 2013

Cedrick Hordges, Charles Scott, Willie Wise, Hollis Copeland, Jr., Ralph Simpson, Jacky Dorsey, Walter Brown vs. Denver Nuggets, Pinnacol Assurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Pinnacol Assurance's petitions for removal, finding the threshold issue to be whether the WCAB has personal jurisdiction over Pinnacol. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's order compelling arbitration of coverage issues. All seven cases are returned to the trial level for a determination of personal jurisdiction over Pinnacol. Further proceedings will depend on the outcome of that jurisdictional decision.

Pinnacol AssuranceDenver NuggetsCedrick HordgesADJ7231165Petition for RemovalArbitrationLabor Code section 5275Insurance CoveragePersonal JurisdictionSpecial Appearance
References
6
Case No. ADJ8663684
Regular
Jul 19, 2013

VICENTE URENA ANZALDO vs. REPUBLIC REFRIGERATION, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's challenges regarding a finding of industrial injury and California jurisdiction. While agreeing with the finding of California jurisdiction, the Board rescinded the original and amended decisions due to procedural errors by the WCJ in addressing the industrial injury issue. The Board issued a new decision finding only that California has jurisdiction over the applicant's claimed injury.

ReconsiderationFindings of FactJurisdictionIndustrial InjuryAmended FindingsWCJ ErrorAppeals Board RulePolicy and Procedural ManualRescindSubstitute
References
0
Case No. ADJ6636803
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

KEVIN A. CAMWELL vs. COMPASS GROUP, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP for AIG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded a prior order because the WCJ lacked jurisdiction. Neither party had filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim, which is required to establish the WCAB's jurisdiction and commence proceedings. While the defendant's petition for removal was untimely, the WCAB acted on its own motion due to the important jurisdictional issue raised. The WCAB held that without a filed application, it cannot conduct hearings or issue orders.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardJurisdictionApplication for Adjudication of ClaimQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial EvidenceDiscoveryLabor Code Section 4663Untimely PetitionRescinded Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 10,928 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