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. ADJ2506742
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

SAUL FUENTES ARGUETA, SAUL ARGUETA vs. PRO CASES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Konstat, seeking reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. Dr. Konstat contends the C&R improperly dismisses the applicant's psychiatric injury claim, which had been previously established by earlier WCAB orders. However, the Board found the C&R did not explicitly stipulate the applicant *did not* sustain a psychiatric injury, but rather agreed to withdraw that specific claim. Therefore, the C&R was not a final order regarding the lien claimant's rights, and the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, allowing the lien claimant to pursue her claim separately.

Lien claimantCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial injuryPsycheStipulationFindings and AwardLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. ADJ6690599
Regular
Jul 05, 2013

MARIA MORENO vs. KELLY SERVICES, INC.; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Defendant Kelly Services' petition for reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision to admit certain lien claimant exhibits and award payment. The Board found that lien claimant Foundation Medical Group (FMG) failed to comply with Labor Code section 4903.8(d) by not submitting required declarations for its billing records. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding FMG's lien. Additionally, the Board dismissed lien claimant Express Case Management's petition for reconsideration as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.8(d)Declaration under penalty of perjuryIndustrial injuryLow back injuryCompromise and ReleaseLien trialMedical bills
References
0
Case No. ADJ7016910, ADJ7016880
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

DENNIS LEBER vs. HOWARDS APPLIANCES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a lien dismissal for non-payment of a $100 activation fee. The lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay based on a federal court order and a DWC Newsline. The Appeals Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, based on the interpretation that the federal court order allowed payment between November 9 and December 31, 2015. If the fee is paid, the lien claim will proceed to the trial level.

Lien activation feeLabor Code § 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDWC NewslineU.S. District CourtPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerDIR Newsline
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1981

Claim of Sandles v. Suffolk County Police Department

Claimant sustained compensable injuries in 1961, and their compensation case was closed in 1963 pending the outcome of a third-party action. Travelers Insurance Co., the compensation carrier, was aware of the third-party action and reduced its lien, leading to a settlement in 1968. After the case was reopened in 1977 due to recurring back problems, Travelers argued that it had not consented to the third-party settlement, barring further compensation under Workers' Compensation Law § 29, and that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases should be liable under § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board rejected both arguments, finding implied consent from Travelers based on evidence of lien reduction and correspondence, and determining that the original case closing was not a true closing for purposes of § 25-a. The appellate court affirmed the board's findings, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

Third-Party Action SettlementCarrier ConsentLien ReductionCase ReopeningSpecial Fund LiabilitySection 29 WCLSection 25-a WCLImplied ConsentFactual QuestionSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Atkinson v. City of New York

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the City of New York. The petitioner sought to prevent the City from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on an award received through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition and prohibited the lien. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court reiterating that Workers’ Compensation liens are applicable only against recoveries from third-party tortfeasors responsible for injuries, as per Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. The court determined that the vaccine injury award did not constitute such a recovery, thus precluding the lien. The case Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. was distinguished as involving an award against a tortfeasor under the Military Claims Act.

Workers' Compensation LienNational Vaccine Injury Compensation ProgramCPLR Article 78Third-Party TortfeasorAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLien ProhibitionVaccine Injury AwardMilitary Claims ActNew York Appellate Courts
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alibrandi Building Systems, Inc. v. Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a Lien Law article 3-A lien foreclosure action. Defendants, comprised of various Iron Workers' Funds and Union entities, brought cross-claims against codefendants Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co., Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and A & J Steel Erectors, seeking unpaid fringe benefits and union dues. Pahl and Fidelity appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss these cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order, striking demands for liquidated damages across all cross-claims and specific interest demands in one, but otherwise affirmed, ruling that ERISA did not preempt these remedial claims. The decision clarified that while principal sums and interest were recoverable under various lien and finance laws, liquidated damages were not.

Lien LawERISAState Finance LawPublic ImprovementMechanics LiensUnpaid BenefitsUnion DuesLiquidated DamagesContract ActionPayment Bond
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 17,979 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