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

McDuffie v. Wilner

Plaintiff Sean A. McDuffie filed a personal injury lawsuit after being injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by Jan S. Wilner, who was driving for JB Hunt Transport, Inc. The case was initially filed in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, and subsequently removed to a federal court in New York. McDuffie later added RSK, Co., his workers' compensation carrier, as a defendant, seeking declaratory relief regarding RSK's lien on any recovery. Wilner and JB Hunt moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing New York's No-Fault Insurance Law applied, while RSK moved to affirm its lien and the application of Connecticut's Workers' Compensation Law. McDuffie also moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Wilner and JB Hunt. The court granted McDuffie's motion for summary judgment on negligence liability against Wilner and JB Hunt, but denied it regarding reckless actions. The court denied Wilner and JB Hunt's motion to dismiss based on New York's No-Fault Insurance Law and granted RSK's motion, affirming its $65,023.25 lien on McDuffie's potential recovery.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident LiabilitySummary Judgment ProcedureConflict of LawsWorkers' Compensation Lien LawNegligence StandardsNo-Fault Insurance ThresholdDiversity Jurisdiction LitigationFederal Court RemovalState Substantive Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leondopoulos v. Caradjas

The order was unanimously affirmed. The defendant was granted leave to answer the amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry. This is contingent upon the payment of $20 in costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided for this decision. The judges present for this order were Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis, and Shientag, JJ.

OrderAffirmedAmended ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsLeave to AnswerPanel DecisionJudicial Panel
References
0
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The City of New York moved to modify a prior contempt order to establish a hiring hall operator selection committee and secure compensation for its representatives. Defendant Local 28 opposed the compensation, suggesting alternative funding or a delay pending a financial audit. The court granted the modification, authorizing the committee's formation and ordering Local 28 to pay the plaintiff's representatives at the journeyperson hourly rate, plus expenses. The judge dismissed Local 28's financial hardship claims due to insufficient evidence and the union's history of non-compliance with anti-discrimination orders. This decision ensures the effective implementation of equal employment opportunities for nonwhite members through the hiring hall.

DiscriminationContemptHiring HallCompensationUnionAffirmative ActionEmployment OpportunitiesJudicial ReviewCivil RightsSanctions
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. 90-CV-641
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1993

Verone v. Taconic Telephone Corp.

Chief Judge McAvoy presided over an order regarding motions for recusal and contempt in case 90-CV-641. Plaintiff Thomas A. Verone sought the recusal of the judge and to hold his attorney, Paul A. Moore, in contempt for failing to comply with prior orders concerning sanction payments. The court denied the recusal motion, finding no sufficient basis for disqualification. However, the court found clear and convincing evidence of Paul A. Moore's noncompliance, granting the contempt motion. Moore was ordered to pay Thomas A. Verone $6,980.00 within thirty days, with the provision for his arrest and confinement by the United States Marshal if he failed to comply.

Civil ContemptAttorney SanctionsRecusal MotionRule 11 SanctionsPayment DefaultJudicial OrdersNoncomplianceConditional ArrestLegal EthicsJudicial Integrity
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 24,031 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