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. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. ADJ15329380
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

BERTHA VALERIO vs. KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; XL INSURANCE

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from August 5, 2025, concerning an injury sustained by applicant Bertha Valerio on September 9, 2021. The F&A found that applicant's injury was AOE/COE, defendant failed to prove improper treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN), and lien claimant Joyce Altman Interpreting, Inc. established their market rate for interpreting services. Defendant contended that medical treatment and interpreter services were unreasonable due to treatment outside the MPN and failure to adhere to MTUS/ACOEM guidelines, and that the market rate for interpreter services was not properly established. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that defendant failed to sustain its burden of proof on the MPN issue, the MTUS/ACOEM guideline issue was not raised at trial, and lien claimant properly established their market rate.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Provider NetworkMPNRequests for AuthorizationRFAsLien ClaimantMarket RateLabor Code Section 4600
References
10
Case No. ADJ8208251
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

MARIA FIGUEROA vs. LE PAFELE CHEF BAKERY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The claimant sought reimbursement for interpreter services at their claimed market rate, but the judge awarded a lower rate, finding the claimant failed to prove their market rate. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the claimant did not present sufficient documentation to establish the market rate for their services. The claimant's exhibits lacked clarity on similarity of services and the selection process for presented billing and payment records.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMarket rateInterpreter servicesBurden of proofSubstantial evidenceRebuttalClaims administratorDeposition preparation
References
3
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ouderkirk v. Nestle Food Co.

Claimant suffered a work-related back injury in 1998, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2006. In 2012, an orthopedic surgeon found total disability, leading to surgery and a proposed weekly compensation rate. The Special Fund objected, seeking claimant's testimony on labor market attachment, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the request and awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, finding involuntary separation from the labor market in 2003 due to the injury, negating the need for testimony. The appellate court reversed, citing a lack of substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant retired in 2003 due to the compensable injury, and prejudiced the Special Fund by denying testimony. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalDisability RetirementSpecial FundSubstantial EvidencePrejudiced PartyRemittalTestimony Denial
References
4
Case No. ADJ16246113
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

ELMER HERNANDEZ vs. TACO BELL, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal concerning an order compelling discovery of market rate guidelines and the identity of a knowledgeable person. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming it untimely and from a non-final order, and denied the removal petition. The Board found the defendant failed to establish attorney work-product privilege, as no attorney asserted the privilege and no evidence demonstrated the guidelines were attorney work-product. Finally, the defendant waived its argument regarding the knowledgeable person by failing to adequately brief the issue.

Cost petitionerAttorney work productMarket rate guidelinesPerson most knowledgeablePetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalFindings and OrderWCJSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
14
Case No. ADJ11368246
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

Marta Ubillus vs. One Stop Employment Services, LLC/Vensure Employer Services, Security National Insurance Company, State National Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the valuation of interpreter services. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found that while the defendant did not present rebuttal evidence, the ALJ had substantial evidence to make a determination. The ALJ determined a market rate of $114.97 per hour but noted the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the duration of services on most dates, preventing application of the market rate. Consequently, the statutory rate was applied for those services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedLien ClaimantInterpreter ServicesMarket RateStatutory RateWCJ ReportSubstantial EvidenceFindings and Award
References
1
Case No. ADJ8361822
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

LORENA CHAVEZ vs. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, ESIS

This case concerns ABC Interpreting, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding them $180.00 for interpreter services. ABC Interpreting sought $250.00, claiming entitlement to the pre-established market rate, plus interest and penalties for late payment. The Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's award because ABC Interpreting failed to provide adequate documentation of market rate, their qualifications as an interpreter, and because Labor Code section 5811 does not authorize penalties and interest. The Board found the $180.00 award consistent with the reasonable and customary rate for interpreter services in the applicable geographic area.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterpreter FeesLabor Code Section 5811Market RateSuperior Court Fee ScheduleQualified InterpreterDeposition ServicesUntimely PaymentInterest and PenaltyAmended Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geltzer v. Artists Marketing Corp. (In Re Cassandra Group)

Robert L. Geltzer, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Cassandra Group, initiated this action to avoid a $300,000 transfer from the Debtor to Artists Marketing Corporation (AMC), Lawrence E. Bathgate, and The Bathgate Group. The Trustee alleged the transfer constituted a fraudulent conveyance under the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor and Creditor Law, and also sought recovery for unjust enrichment. The court found that The Cassandra Group was insolvent at the time of the transfer and that the transfer lacked fair consideration and good faith. The defendants, AMC, Bathgate, and The Bathgate Group, were deemed to have benefited from the transfer despite their role in allowing a key celebrity (DiCaprio) to rescind an agreement without legal basis, which contributed to the failure of the AMC venture. Consequently, the court ruled that the $300,000 transfer is avoidable and awarded prejudgment interest to the Trustee.

BankruptcyFraudulent ConveyanceConstructive FraudIntentional FraudUnjust EnrichmentInsolvent DebtorPrejudgment InterestChapter 7New York Debtor and Creditor LawEscrow Agreement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shandraw v. Tops Markets, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ironworker, initiated an action against Tops Markets, Inc. and Camridge Construction, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained on a construction project, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) due to a hazardous ground condition. The Supreme Court partially dismissed these claims, notably the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and parts of the remaining claims. On appeal, the court further modified the order, ruling that Labor Law § 241 (6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) was inapplicable as the incident area was not a designated floor or platform. It also concluded that the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action should have been entirely dismissed, asserting that the hazardous condition was readily observable by the plaintiff, thus negating the defendants' duty to protect against it.

Ironworker injuryConstruction site accidentPremises liabilitySummary judgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous conditionReadily observable hazardAppellate reviewPersonal injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,404 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