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
Mar 14, 2018

Midstate Fin. Co. v. Peoples

Midstate Finance Company appealed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of Justin and Cathy Peoples's Chapter 13 plan. The appeal centered on two main issues: the valuation of the debtors' property for the "best interest of the creditors" test and the failure to discount Chapter 13 plan payments to net present value. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's property valuation, finding it was not clearly erroneous given the evidence considered. However, the court reversed on the second point, holding that Chapter 13 plan payments must be discounted to net present value when applying the best interest of the creditors test. The case was remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BankruptcyChapter 7Chapter 13Creditors' RightsDebtorsProperty ValuationBest Interest TestNet Present ValueHomestead ExemptionLiquidation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. 14-14-00238-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Modis, Inc v. Net Matrix Solutions, Inc.

Modis, Inc. appealed a judgment favoring Net Matrix Solutions, Inc. regarding a breach-of-contract claim stemming from a "Subcontractor Agreement." Net Matrix alleged Modis breached a clause (paragraph 8F) by continuing to utilize their former employee, Nistane, via another subcontractor, Millennium, for the same client, LyondellBasell. The appellate court, applying Florida contract law, determined that paragraph 8F's prohibition against "hiring" was unambiguous and only applied to direct actions, unlike other clauses that explicitly forbade indirect engagement. Concluding that Modis's conduct did not constitute a direct hire, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and ruled in favor of Modis, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Net Matrix.

Contract disputeSubcontractingFlorida contract lawContractual ambiguityNon-solicitation clauseAppellate decisionBreach of contractDirect vs. indirect hiringBusiness agreementJudicial interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Ilion v. County of Herkimer

Justice Abdus-Salaam dissents in part from the majority's decision, which held that a withdrawal payment owed by the plaintiff, Village of Herkimer, to the County for an Abandonment Plan should be discounted to present value. The dissent argues that the withdrawal payment was a lump sum contractual obligation, calculated based on an actuarial estimate of future workers' compensation claims, but represented an immediate present loss to the County when the plaintiff failed to make the payment on the due date of December 31, 2005. Therefore, the dissenting judge contends that the trial court correctly declined to discount the damages award to present value, as it remedied a present loss. The dissent also distinguishes this contract dispute from tort cases where future damages are typically discounted, and affirms the trial court's decision to apply interest from the date of the breach.

breach of contractdamagespresent value discountworkers' compensationlump sum paymentactuarial estimatedissenting opinioncontractual riskinterest calculationNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

Judge Edelstein was presented with two orders seeking to show cause why a Grand Jury presentment from October 1952 should not be expunged from court records. The judge declined to sign the orders, asserting that the procedure was not adversarial, as the United States Attorney is not responsible for defending a Grand Jury's presentment. Treating the orders as motions to expunge, Judge Edelstein then denied them without prejudice. He reasoned that granting the motions would require him to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a colleague's actions in the same court, which he refused to do, suggesting renewal of the motions before the original presiding judge.

Grand JuryExpungementJudicial DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionMotions PracticeCourt RecordsPresentmentDistrict Court
References
1
Case No. ADJ3563222 (SRO 0126894)
Regular
Jul 25, 2013

SHARON KARR-REDDELL vs. CHRISTOPHERSON HOMES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a decision regarding attorney's fees awarded to applicant's counsel, John Bloom. The WCAB found the original decision erred by calculating fees based on the gross award rather than present value and by not commuting the life pension award for fee payment. The WCAB rescinded the prior order, awarding Mr. Bloom a total of $32,768.18 in attorney's fees based on the present value of both the permanent disability and life pension awards. These fees are to be paid as lump sums commuted from the respective awards through uniform reduction of future payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability AwardLife Pension AwardAttorney's FeeCommutationPresent ValueUniform Reduction MethodLabor Code Section 4659(c)State Average Weekly Wage
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. P & D GMC Sales, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an award for occupational lung disease. The claimant, an autobody repairer, was found to have a permanent total disability, and the Board held the employer and its insurer fully liable for the benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge ordered the present value of the award to be deposited into the Aggregate Trust Fund, which the Board affirmed. The employer appealed, arguing for a hearing on the award's present value and consideration of the claimant's life expectancy in actuarial computations. However, the Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer's arguments lacked merit and citing Workers' Compensation Law § 27 (5) and prior case law.

Occupational Lung DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityAggregate Trust FundActuarial ComputationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLiability ApportionmentLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koch Industries, Inc. v. Sun Co.

The case involves a complaint filed by Koch Industries against Sun Company regarding the sale of a refinery and related assets in Corpus Christi in 1981. Count I of the complaint concerns the transfer of an employee pension plan and its funding. Koch argued that Sun was obligated to pay interest on funds transferred after the closing date, based on the contract's "present value" and "as of closing date" language. Sun contended that the contract did not explicitly require interest. The court found that the contract's language was unambiguous, defining the funding amount as the "present value as of the closing date," irrespective of the actual transfer date. Therefore, the court concluded that Sun was not obligated to pay additional interest and dismissed Count I of the complaint in favor of the defendants.

Pension FundingAcquisition AgreementContract InterpretationDefined Benefit PlanPresent ValueClosing DateInterest ObligationEmployee BenefitsActuarial AssumptionsTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saur v. M & M Transportation

The case involves an appeal regarding the actuarial computation of present value and interest payable to the Aggregate Trust Fund under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Board made several recomputations and assessments for interest against an employer and its insurance carrier. The insurer objected, disputing the basis for interest payments prior to a specific directive. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, particularly its determination of the present value computation date. The court ultimately found the Board's decision to be erroneous as a matter of law, lacking statutory or factual basis. Consequently, the court reversed the decision, awarded costs to the employer and insurance carrier, and remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Actuarial computationPresent valueAggregate Trust FundWorkers' Compensation LawInterest assessmentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewRemittitur
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2011

Seickel v. State Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted a petition to extinguish a lien pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 and determined respondents’ equitable share of petitioner’s litigation costs. The appellate court modified the order, vacating the determination of respondents’ equitable share of litigation costs and remanding the matter for recalculation. The court held that petitioner’s projected future medical expenses are too speculative to be considered in calculating the total benefit to respondents. It affirmed the lower court's use of the Life Expectancy and Present Value Tables set forth in the Pattern Jury Instructions to determine the present value of future indemnity liability, rejecting the respondents' contentions regarding the use of other mortality or remarriage tables.

Workers' Compensation LawLien ExtinguishmentLitigation CostsEquitable ShareFuture Medical ExpensesSpeculative DamagesLife Expectancy TablesPresent Value TablesMortality TablesAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,545 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