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. ADJ6821965 ADJ6822019
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

FELIX ESTEFO vs. SODEXO, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding the Medical Provider Network's (MPN) effective date of December 14, 2007, and the imposition of $2,400 in sanctions against hearing representative Tami Navon for making false statements. However, the Board rescinded the WCJ's order regarding the lien claimant's claim, deferring the lien and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify the issues and evidence related to the lien. This ensures due process and proper consideration of the lien's compensability, especially if treatment predated the MPN's effective date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPN effective dateLien claimantSanctionsHearing representativeReconsiderationFindings and OrderStipulationCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. 15-36090
Regular Panel Decision

In re Covelli

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' motion to reopen their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposed sanctions on creditor William Clement for violating the discharge injunction. Clement had pursued a deficiency judgment in state court on a discharged mortgage debt, despite previous court orders. The Court found Clement in contempt and ordered him to withdraw the state court proceeding, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance. The Court denied Clement's separate motion to declare an earlier Chapter 13 petition date as the effective date for the Chapter 7 discharge, reaffirming the June 15, 2015 Chapter 7 petition date.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionSanctionsMotion to ReopenPetition DateDeficiency JudgmentContemptChapter 7Chapter 13Automatic Stay
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bach v. Millard Fillmore Health Systems, Inc.

This case addresses the applicability of the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996 to a third-party action. The plaintiff was injured in July 1996, prior to the Act’s effective date of September 10, 1996. However, the subsequent third-party lawsuit against the employer, Amherst Acoustical, Inc., was initiated in November 1997, after the Act became law. The court examined whether the accident date or the lawsuit commencement date should dictate the application of the new legislation. Relying on the Court of Appeals' clear directive in Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., the court ruled that irrespective of the accident date, a prospective application of the law to actions filed after the effective date requires dismissal of the third-party claim.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentProspective ApplicationMajewski RuleDismissalNew York LawOmnibus Workers' Compensation Reform ActTort Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dudek v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case addresses the applicability of the "grave injury" requirement under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which restricts contribution and common-law indemnification claims against employers. The plaintiff sustained an eye injury during employment in 1995, and the main action was filed in July 1996, prior to the Act's September 10, 1996, effective date. Subsequent third-party actions against Leadcare and Safeway (the employer) were initiated after this date. The court held that the "grave injury" requirement does not apply to third-party actions if the underlying main action commenced before the Act's effective date, as these later actions are considered derivative. The second amended judgment was affirmed.

Grave Injury RequirementWorkers' Compensation Act AmendmentThird-Party IndemnificationEmployer ContributionProspective Application of LawCommencement Date RuleDerivative Liability PrincipleWorkplace Injury LitigationStatutory Interpretation (Workers' Compensation Law)Personal Injury Claims
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fried v. Perales

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment that annulled a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, which had modified a subsidized adoption agreement by terminating a recreational stipend. The original determination, dated November 3, 1983, affirmed a local agency's decision. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 9, 1984, annulled this determination, holding that the adoption subsidy agreement was governed by the former Social Services Law § 398 (6) (k), which permitted recreational stipends, despite the actual adoption occurring after a new law (§ 450 et seq.) took effect. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the legislative intent and the approval of the subsidy agreement before the new law's effective date meant the old law applied, ensuring the enforceability of the recreational stipend for the petitioners' severely handicapped son.

Adoption subsidyRecreational stipendSocial Services LawStatutory interpretationRetroactive application of lawCPLR Article 78Handicapped childrenAdministrative lawAppellate reviewFamily law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kline v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Ray W. Kline and Dorothy M. Kline filed a diversity action against several chemical companies, including E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., alleging injuries from Mr. Kline's exposure to ortho-toluidine during his employment with The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. The defendant chemical companies then filed a third-party complaint against Goodyear seeking contribution and indemnification. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting Goodyear's motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, concluding that the 1996 Omnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act, which restricts employer liability for third-party claims, applies to this case as the lawsuit was filed after the Act's effective date, even though the exposure occurred prior. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, agreeing that the Act's amendments apply to actions filed after its effective date, irrespective of the injury's occurrence date, citing persuasive dicta from the New York Court of Appeals in Majewski. Consequently, Goodyear's motion was granted.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ClaimsEmployer LiabilityStatutory RetroactivityNew York State LawFederal Diversity JurisdictionSummary JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsToxic TortOrtho-toluidine Exposure
References
33
Case No. ADJ6538283
Regular
Jun 03, 2009

SOPHIA CALIX vs. TARGET CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured and Administered By SEDGWICK, CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's finding that the defendant failed to comply with MPN regulations. The applicant received treatment outside the MPN on the date of injury but was transferred to MPN providers shortly thereafter. The Board found that the defendant provided timely notice of MPN rights and that the applicant did not suffer neglect in receiving medical treatment. The matter was returned to the trial level to clarify the record regarding initial MPN notification.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Administrative Director RulesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJacute conditiontimely notificationClaim FormKnight v. United Parcel Service
References
1
Case No. ADJ3823114 (MON 0252208)
Regular
Dec 03, 2015

ILANA BENLULU vs. BEVERLY SINAI TOWERS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, servicing facility for CIGA for RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

This case concerns the proper transfer of an injured worker into a defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant contended she pre-designated her physician, avoiding MPN requirements, but provided no supporting evidence. The Board found that the defendant's prior attempts to transfer the applicant into the MPN were invalid due to insufficient notice or the MPN's failure to meet minimum access standards. Ultimately, the Board determined that a July 15, 2014 notice, properly served and containing all required information, effectively transferred the applicant into the MPN on August 14, 2014.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodePre-designation of PhysicianContinuity of CareTransfer of CareMinimum Access Standards
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,010 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