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

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Marsh U.S.A., Inc.

The State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board appealed an order that partially granted motions to dismiss filed by several defendants, including former trustees (Zubin, Mclvor) and the Trust administrator (Marsh U.S.A., Inc.). The Trust, formed in 1998, provided workers' compensation insurance to construction employers and later operated at a deficit, leading to the plaintiff assuming its administration in 2009. Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract and fraud against the trustees, and breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Marsh. The Supreme Court had dismissed fraud claims against Zubin and Mclvor and partially dismissed claims against Marsh based on statute of limitations and lack of agreement. On appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims against Zubin and Mclvor, finding them directly related to breach of contract. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of breach of contract claims against Marsh regarding premium calculations from November 2006 to October 2007, citing the discovery of a relevant agreement. The order was therefore modified and affirmed as modified.

Workers' CompensationSelf-Insurance TrustBreach of ContractFraudStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewInsurance AdministrationTrust ManagementFiduciary DutyPremium Calculation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. 04 Cv. 8144(SWK)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2007

In Re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Securities Litigation

Plaintiff M.F. Henry filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and its directors, citing false statements and omissions in proxy statements. The defendants moved for dismissal, raising arguments of res judicata and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court rejected the res judicata defense, noting issues with privity and the case's unique procedural history. However, the court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that the defendants had no duty to disclose uncharged mismanagement, the potential incidental benefit of an options exchange to unnamed wrongdoers, or an auditor's alleged prior audit failures, as these omissions did not render any explicit statements misleading. The Third Amended Complaint was consequently dismissed with prejudice.

Securities LitigationProxy SolicitationRule 14a-9 ViolationsMaterialityDuty to DiscloseCorporate MismanagementShareholder Derivative ActionRes Judicata DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Securities Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1982

Claim of De Marsh v. De Marsh & Sons

The claimant has a history of work-related back injuries, with the latest significant injury occurring on August 5, 1976. The Workers’ Compensation Board found a 50% causally related disability attributable to the 1976 accident and a proper reduced earnings rate of $83.33. The carrier appealed, arguing that the referee erred by not allowing the introduction of evidence or cross-examination regarding prior injuries. The Board concluded that no error occurred as the carrier had previously fully litigated the issue and failed to timely apply to reopen prior cases. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, noting that the carrier was attempting to indirectly achieve what it had been barred from doing directly. Additionally, the carrier’s claim of lacking substantial evidence for the 50% disability was dismissed as they had previously conceded this point.

Work-related back injuryCausally related disabilityReduced earningsWorkers’ Compensation Board decisionAppealEvidence admissibilityPrior injuriesReopening of caseTimeliness of applicationSubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1977

Theano v. Marsh & McLennan

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's knowledge of an employee's pre-existing permanent impairment, specifically a wrist operation. The Board had found, based on credible testimony, that the employer lacked a good faith belief regarding the employee's prior permanent impairment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support it. Costs were awarded to the Special Fund against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeGood Faith BeliefSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWrist InjurySurgical HistorySpecial Fund CostsInsurance Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marsh v. Prudential Securities Inc.

This case addresses whether Prudential Securities Incorporated's MasterShare Plan, an optional investment benefit for its financial advisors, violates New York Labor Law § 193. The plan involves voluntary wage deductions for investment in a public stock index fund, offering tax deferral and discounted share purchases, but includes provisions for temporary non-transferability and forfeiture upon termination for cause or resignation within three years. A former employee, whose MasterShare account was forfeited after his termination, initiated a class action, arguing the plan's deductions and forfeiture terms violate the 'benefit of the employee' requirement of Labor Law § 193. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals determined that the plan does not violate Labor Law § 193, concluding that such investment deductions are 'similar payments for the benefit of the employee' and that, given full disclosure and the sophisticated nature of the participating employees, the forfeiture provision does not negate the overall benefits of the plan when assessed in its entirety.

Wage deductionsInvestment planMasterShare PlanLabor Law § 193Forfeiture provisionStock index fundTax deferralEmployee benefitsCertified questionPrudential Securities
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Crisman v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the distribution of death benefits. The decedent, a victim of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, was unmarried and childless. His mother, the claimant, sought to disqualify the biological father, Richard Shelp, from receiving a share of the $50,000 death benefit awarded under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (4-b), citing his abandonment of the decedent during infancy. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the disqualification, interpreting the statute as not providing an exception for abandoning parents. Although a Surrogate’s Court later disqualified Shelp as a distributee of the decedent's estate under EPTL 4-1.4, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the plain language of Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (4-b) does not permit judicial creation of such an exclusion. The court concluded that any modification to include an abandonment clause must be made by the Legislature.

AbandonmentDeath BenefitWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationParental RightsEstate LawAppellate ReviewSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterSurviving Parents
References
4
Case No. ADJ1875651
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

DARREL MARSH vs. EAST VALLEY HEMATOLOGY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal filed by Lien Claimant Dr. David Silver. Dr. Silver sought removal after the WCJ vacated a prior order and scheduled a conference to develop the record on penalty and interest regarding his lien. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding that Dr. Silver failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or prejudice necessary for removal. The WCJ determined the record was insufficient to address penalty and interest, as proof of mailing and receipt of the lien was missing.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantDr. David SilverPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §4603.2(b)Penalty and InterestDevelop the RecordIrreparable InjuryDue Process
References
1
Case No. ADJ2888679
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

RAMON BARAJAS vs. PIRANHA PIPE AND PRE-CAST, INC., MARSH USA

Lien claimants Face-2-Face and Dickman sought reconsideration after their liens were dismissed for non-appearance at a lien conference. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and reinstated the liens. This action was taken because subsequent stipulations and orders on November 15, 2011, approved settlements for both Face-2-Face and Dickman's liens, resolving their claims. The Board's decision effectively affirmed these settlements while dismissing other previously dismissed liens.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensWCJPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderStipulation and AgreementRescindedIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ1630366 (SFO 0450955) ADJ4338389 (SFO 0431370)
Regular
Apr 05, 2019

PATRICIA MARSH vs. US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS, CALIFORNIA ISURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves CIGA's petition for reimbursement from ACE American Insurance Company for workers' compensation benefits paid due to the insolvency of Reliance Insurance Company. The WCAB rescinded the prior denial, finding CIGA has standing and its claim is not barred by laches. However, CIGA must still prove ACE's joint and several liability for medical treatment and that ACE's policy constitutes "other insurance." The matter is returned to the trial level for a complete record and further determination on these issues.

CIGALachesStandingReimbursementJoint and Several LiabilityOther InsuranceCompromise and ReleaseInsured InsolvencyWCABWCJ
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 15 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