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. ADJ1764832 (SFO 0511779)
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

PATRICK YU vs. NEIMAN MARCUS, LIBERTY MUTUAL SACRAMENTO

This case involves applicant Patrick Yu's workers' compensation claim against Neiman Marcus, insured by Liberty Mutual. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order denying Yu's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge in its decision. Therefore, the applicant's request for reconsideration of the prior ruling has been formally denied.

Order Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardNeiman MarcusLiberty MutualADJ1764832SFO 0511779Petition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law Judge ReportWCJApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ3423900 (ANA 0320773)
Regular
Sep 16, 2009

Donna Smith vs. Neiman Marcus, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its decision regarding Donna Smith's claim against Neiman Marcus and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Although applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed, it was not brought to the Board's attention within the statutory 60-day period due to administrative oversight. The Board, applying due process principles and citing relevant case law, determined that the 60-day review period begins when the Board has actual notice of the petition. Therefore, the untimely review of the petition led to its denial on the merits, upholding the WCJ's previous decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5909Due ProcessShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardFraudMisrepresentationMutual Mistake of Fact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Masucci

Plaintiff Steven Marcus filed a complaint against Samuel Masucci and Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment related to an investment product. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. The court found that Marcus, as a registered employee of Chase Securities (an NASD member), was bound by a Form U-4 agreement to arbitrate disputes under NASD rules. Masucci, employed by Bear Stearns (also an NASD member), was an 'associated person.' The court determined that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed and that its broad scope encompassed Marcus's claims, including those predating his employment with Chase Securities. Consequently, the motion to compel arbitration was granted, and the action was dismissed with leave to reopen if necessary after arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActNASD By-lawsForm U-4Securities IndustryEmployment DisputeTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionUnjust EnrichmentRetroactive Application
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Marcus

Defendant Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor stemming from his abusive BDSM relationship with Jodi, who he coerced into performing sexual acts and labor for his commercial website. Marcus moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) did not apply to intimate relationships or consensual BDSM, and that there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between his force/coercion and the commercial sex acts or labor. The court denied both motions, upholding the convictions. The court found the TVPA statutes were broadly applicable, rejecting a narrow interpretation based on intimate relationships, and affirmed that evidence sufficiently demonstrated Marcus's use of non-consensual force and coercion to compel Jodi's participation in commercial sex acts and website-related labor, despite the BDSM context.

Sex TraffickingForced LaborBDSMRule 29 MotionRule 33 MotionTrafficking Victims Protection ActStatutory InterpretationRule of LenityCommercial Sex ActsSexual Exploitation
References
20
Case No. 23723/08
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Quattrocchi

A case where plaintiffs Katheryn Marcus and Sarah Goldberg sought to remand their case, Marcus v. Quattrocchi, back to state court after its removal to federal court by defendants Lisa Quattrocchi, Amy Aronson, Clifford Aronson, George Siegel, and Albert Flieschman. Plaintiffs argued for remand based on the probate exception to federal jurisdiction, an unascertainable amount in controversy, and the existence of a parallel state court proceeding. The Court, presided over by Judge Kenneth M. Karas, denied the motion. It determined that the probate exception did not apply because the claims sought personal damages, not estate administration or control over state-custodied property. The Court also found that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, noting the plaintiffs' claim for "millions of dollars" in damages. Finally, the Court dismissed the abstention argument as the alleged parallel state proceeding had been dismissed.

Probate ExceptionSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionMotion to RemandBreach of Fiduciary DutyTrust MisappropriationAmount in ControversyAbstention DoctrineParallel ProceedingsFederal Jurisdiction
References
51
Case No. ADJ9478710
Regular
Apr 28, 2015

Hanna Kefetew vs. Neiman Marcus, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves applicant Hannah Kefetew's petition for removal of a WCJ's order setting a trial for her workers' compensation claim. The petition was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Appeals Board also noted issues with proper attorney representation and service of documents. Reconsideration is deemed an adequate remedy if a final decision is adverse to the applicant.

Petition for RemovalWCJThreshold IssueInjury arising out of and occurring in the course of employmentCumulative PeriodAbdomenPsycheSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIncomplete Discovery
References
1
Case No. ADJ8033181
Regular
Jun 04, 2013

MARCIA MATTHEWS vs. NEIMAN MARCUS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order to select an Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board found that the applicant's physician, Dr. Chambi, provided substantial evidence supporting the need for spinal surgery. Conversely, the defense's second opinion physician, Dr. Ma, failed to adequately explain his non-surgical recommendation and his initial report was untimely due to the defense's failure to provide complete medical records. Therefore, the Board ordered the defendant to provide the requested spinal surgery.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorRegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701Spinal SurgeryNeurosurgical ConsultationUtilization Review DenialSecond Opinion EvaluatorFormer Labor Code Section 4062(b)Expedited Hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2015

Marcus v. AXA Advisors, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of pre-contract associates and employee-agents, filed a class action against AXA Advisors, LLC, AXA Financial Services, LLC, and AXA Network, LLC (collectively, "AXA"). They alleged that AXA misclassified them as independent contractors and outside sales agents, thereby violating the New York Labor Law's minimum wage and overtime provisions. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims. District Judge Pamela K. Chen denied the motion for class certification, finding insufficient commonality among unlicensed pre-contract associates and 20th edition employee-agents due to variations in their working conditions. While licensed pre-contract associates did show commonality, the court determined that the sole proposed class representative, Bennet Marcus, was not typical of that class.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum WageOvertimeIndependent ContractorOutside Sales AgentMisclassificationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West Branch Conservation Ass'n v. Planning Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding sought to review a negative declaration and preliminary subdivision approval by the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown. The Supreme Court's initial dismissal was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found the Planning Board's determination irrational and in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Board had issued a negative declaration despite acknowledging potential significant environmental impacts from the proposed residential development on High Tor Mountain. The court concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required, annulling the Board's determination and remitting the matter for EIS preparation. The court also clarified standing, affirming Marcus Ratliff's standing while noting the West Branch Conservation Association, Inc. lacked it.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementSubdivision ApprovalLand Use PlanningPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingStanding
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 35 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