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
Nov 03, 2010

Flynn v. Managed Care, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier and employer challenging a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the carrier was entitled to a refund of $64,540.56 from the aggregate trust fund (ATF). The dispute arose when the carrier, directed to deposit funds into the ATF after a decedent's employment-related death, withheld payment during appeals and paid beneficiaries directly. After the award was affirmed, the carrier deposited the required sum with interest and sought a full refund for its prior direct payments. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's delayed payment justified the interest charge to prevent a windfall and ensure the ATF maintained sufficient funds.

Workers' Compensation BoardAggregate Trust FundWorkers' Compensation CarrierEmployer AppealRefund DisputeInterest CalculationLate PaymentCommutationBeneficiary PaymentsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ9714303
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

BRENT REYNOLDS vs. HOSTESS BRANDS, FORMERLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SELFINSURED SECURITY FUND VIA TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hostess Brands' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that while Hostess Brands' communication regarding a non-refundable deposit for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's deposition was not in bad faith, it constituted an ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(f). The ALJ also found the Applicant's counsel violated the same section by communicating with the evaluator without consulting the defense. As both parties violated the statute, the ALJ denied competing petitions for costs and sanctions, a decision affirmed by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeposition Fee AgreementNon-refundable DepositCross-examination FeesEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 4062.3Fee ScheduleMedical-legal Expenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. ADJ423557 (ANA 0341897)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

BARTOLLO TERRONES vs. REMEDY TEMP, RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, U.S. TILE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Select Staffing's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order compelling depositions and document production. Select argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over its non-party witnesses and demanded confidential financial documents. The WCAB found Labor Code Section 5710 allows compelling depositions of non-party witnesses, and the WCJ has jurisdiction to order production of the purchase agreement, with claims of privilege to be adjudicated later. No substantial prejudice to Select was found to warrant disturbing the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeposition of WitnessesMotion to Compel AttendanceNotice to ProduceStaffing AgencyGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Labor Code Section 5710
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1981

Spielman v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Plaintiffs, trustees of an employee benefit fund, sued Chemical Bank for damages related to a forged check. Their attorney fraudulently induced them to issue a check for a purported settlement. The attorney then forged a restrictive indorsement ('for deposit only') and deposited it into his personal account at Chemical Bank, despite the payee law firm having no account there. While Chemical Bank argued non-liability under UCC 3-405(1)(c) due to the forger being the drawer's agent, the court held Chemical Bank liable for violating UCC 3-206(3) by not adhering to the restrictive indorsement. The court clarified that 'for deposit only' implies deposit into the payee-indorser's account. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Chemical Bank was affirmed.

conversionsummary judgmentUniform Commercial Coderestrictive indorsementforged indorsementdepositary bank liabilitypayee-indorserdrawer's agentemployee benefit fundappellate court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. ADJ6912990
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

WILLIAM HENDERSON vs. UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST, ESIS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order allowing non-medical witness depositions to be sent to a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). While the employer admittedly violated Labor Code section 4062.3(b) by failing to provide prior notice of these depositions, the Board found that the applicant received due process because the judge deferred rulings on deposition objections until trial. The Board also noted that the QME had not yet made any determinations regarding personnel actions. Therefore, no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated, and the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)DepositionNon-medical recordsLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Due processIndustrial injuryDigestive system injuryPsyche injuryPriority conference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,041 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