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

Claim of Turdo v. Dellicato Vineyards

The case addresses whether the New York State Insurance Department Liquidation Bureau is required to make a mandatory deposit into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board had ruled that the deposit was mandatory, reversing its previous stance. However, the appellate court found that the plain language of Workers' Compensation Law § 27 does not mandate such deposits for the Liquidation Bureau, as it is not a 'stock corporation or mutual association'. While the Board possesses discretionary power to require deposits from 'insurance carriers', the court noted that the Board's decision was solely based on the mandatory provision. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Board to consider if a discretionary deposit would be appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Law § 27Aggregate Trust FundLiquidation BureauDeath BenefitsMandatory DepositDiscretionary DepositInsurance CarrierStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemand
References
10
Case No. ADJ7466813
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

ROBERTO MENA, COBERTON MENA vs. PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES; LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING, PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES, LLC; LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING

This case involves a lien claimant, Max MRI Imaging, whose lien was dismissed due to failure to pay the mandatory lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the dismissal despite the claimant's argument of an oversight. The Board emphasized that the statute's language is mandatory and provides no exceptions for inadvertent non-payment. The ruling also clarified procedural arguments regarding notice, appearances, and the inapplicability of the *Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp.* case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoberto MenaPriority Building ServicesLumberman's UnderwritingADJ7466813Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.06Lien Activation FeeDismissal of LienMandatory Requirement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1972

Claim of Marciniak v. Berlitz School of Languages

The claimant, a French teacher, was injured on his way home after teaching a class at an alternate location (Hospital for Special Surgery) following his regular shift at the employer's main school. The Workmen’s Compensation Board denied his claim, but the court reversed this decision. The court reasoned that the claimant, when traveling to and from the remote teaching assignment, was acting as an 'outside worker.' Citing established precedents, the court concluded that the homeward journey from such a special work assignment falls within the course of employment. Therefore, the Board's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Worker's CompensationOutside EmployeeCourse of EmploymentTravel InjuryDual Employment LocationAppealRemittalSpecial Errand RuleWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinhardt v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, initiated an action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction and damages to be reinstated to membership in a trades union, alleging improper exclusion or expulsion. The case involved an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial, which was subsequently modified by the court. Specific items were struck from the original order, and two new items were inserted to cover factual issues arising from denials in the complaint. The modified order was affirmed without costs, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to frame additional questions. The Special Term’s discretion in granting the order under section 430 of the Civil Practice Act was upheld by the court.

Mandatory InjunctionDamagesTrades Union MembershipImproper ExclusionExpulsionJury Trial IssuesOrder ModificationCivil Practice ActAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Soo Tsui

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board regarding Language Services Associates, Inc.'s (LSA) liability for unemployment insurance contributions. A claimant, a Cantonese and Mandarin interpreter, filed for benefits after ceasing work for LSA. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, not an independent contractor, making LSA liable. LSA appealed, but an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Department's determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on LSA's control over assignments, payment practices, and performance monitoring. The court also upheld LSA's liability for similarly situated individuals and found no conflict with Department of Labor guidelines for the translating and interpreting industry.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnemployment Insurance ContributionsInterpretersTranslation ServicesDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceWorker Classification
References
11
Case No. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicalo v. New York City Housing & Development Administration

Plaintiffs, sponsors of the Harbour Village limited-profit cooperative housing project in Brooklyn, sought a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction to compel New York City defendants to take actions, including issuing a condemnation certificate, to facilitate the project. The project, approved by the Board of Estimate in 1971, stalled due to the Mayor's failure to issue the certificate, which was deemed a discretionary act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Mayor's action was discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore could not be compelled by the court. The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as no enforceable contract existed given the Mayor's unexercised discretion and the court's lack of power to compel legislative or executive action.

Declaratory JudgmentMandatory InjunctionSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentDiscretionary ActMinisterial ActCondemnation ProceedingsPrivate Housing Finance LawNew York City CharterAdministrative Code
References
19
Case No. ADJ8019724
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

LORETO RAMIREZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Med-Legal Photocopy's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the administrative law judge's decision to dismiss Med-Legal's lien with prejudice. This dismissal was based on Med-Legal's failure to pay the mandatory lien activation fee as required by Labor Code § 4903.06. The Board found the statutory language clear and unequivocal regarding the obligation and deadline for paying this fee, regardless of when the case was initially set.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeLien ConferenceLien Activation FeeLabor Code § 4903.06Dismissal with PrejudiceRetroactive ApplicationFigueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.En Banc Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ7770790 / ADJ7769796 / ADJ7769794
Regular
Mar 19, 2014

MODESTO SANCHEZ vs. JAMES AND JOHN JONGSMA DAIRY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Here's a summary for a lawyer in max four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. The petition sought to overturn a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) minute orders from a January 13, 2014 status conference. The WCAB found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The WCJ's report, which the WCAB adopted, indicated the removal was sought due to the applicant's counsel's refusal to include standard settlement language and her subsequent mandatory appearance order.

Petition for RemovalWCJ ReportReparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceMinute OrdersStatus ConferenceSettlement NegotiationsThomas FindingLanguage DisputeMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 935 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