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. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. ADJ8350670
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

SALOMON LOPEZ vs. D & T FOODS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a dispute over the approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant sustained injuries to his back, legs, and abdomen. The WCJ issued an order requiring further medical evaluation despite the parties filing an amended C&R. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ's order was inappropriate. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the WCJ's order, and approved the amended C&R, awarding the applicant a net recovery of $15,335.71.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJ OrderQME evaluationAME evaluationabdominal aspectsdriver unloaderindustrial injurypermanent disability advancesattorney's fee
References
0
Case No. ADJ6886930
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ vs. MOUNTAIN F ENTERPRISES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that reduced the agreed-upon attorney's fee in a death benefit and serious and willful misconduct compromise and release. The Board found the WCJ's reasons for the reduction inadequate and intended to amend the order to approve the original $38,500 attorney's fee. This is being done after providing applicant's counsel an opportunity to comply with procedural requirements regarding fee increases, and applicant notice of her right to seek independent counsel.

AMENDED COMPROMISE AND RELEASESERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGUARDIAN AD LITEMATTORNEY'S FEE REDUCTIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYDEATH CLAIMDEPENDENTSWAGESLABOR CODE
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banks v. National Union Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The original proceeding, overseen by Justice Dillon, was initiated pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) to retroactively approve a settlement of an action. The Supreme Court had granted the petition, allowing the petitioner's settlement with a third party nunc pro tunc. The appellate court affirmed this order, concluding that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in its approval. Justices Altman, Goldstein, Luciano, and H. Miller concurred with the decision.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro TuncAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionDutchess CountySupreme Court (NY)Third-Party SettlementOrder AffirmedConcurring Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeng Xi Chen v. Spitz

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on October 2, 2009, which granted the plaintiff's motion for nunc pro tunc approval of a third-party settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). This order was subsequently affirmed unanimously by the appellate court. The appellate review found that nonparty appellant Lu Gang was indeed the plaintiff's employer at the time of the accident and had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) acted as the workers' compensation carrier and consented to the $25,500 settlement in the underlying action. The appellate court also determined that the plaintiff's delay in seeking court approval for the settlement was not due to his fault or neglect and did not cause prejudice to the UEF, affirming the original decision.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalUninsured Employers' FundCourt Approval DelayEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury ActionInsurance CoverageStatutory Compliance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cosgrove v. County of Ulster

Petitioner, injured in a work-related accident, received workers' compensation and subsequently settled a third-party tort action against the respondent for $15,000. Petitioner's counsel believed the employer's insurance carrier had approved a one-third share of the settlement but the carrier failed to provide disbursement instructions for its portion. After the carrier terminated workers' compensation benefits, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court granted this approval, which the carrier then appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the settlement amount was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial approval was not due to petitioner's fault, and the carrier was not prejudiced by the delay.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCarrier ConsentThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewSettlement ReasonablenessDelay ExcuseLack of Prejudice
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Johns-Manville Corp.

This case involves appeals from a District Court's Opinion and Order concerning a Bankruptcy Court's Clarifying Order and Findings related to the Johns-Manville Corporation's asbestos bankruptcy. The original 1986 injunction barred direct suits against Manville's insurers, including Travelers. Subsequently, various plaintiff groups filed direct actions against Travelers, leading to settlements that the Bankruptcy Court approved. Objecting Insurers and Objecting Claimants appealed this approval, challenging the Bankruptcy Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the fairness of the settlement. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enjoin direct action suits and approve the settlements, considering these suits as indirect attempts to recover from Manville's insurance policies. However, the District Court vacated the "gate-keeping" provision of the Clarifying Order, finding it exceeded the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction. The motions to dismiss the appeals were denied.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcyInsurance LawDirect Action SuitsSettlement AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionBar OrderJudgment ReductionDue ProcessChapter 11 Reorganization
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. CNA Insurance

In January 1996, the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working and received workers’ compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. She later settled a third-party negligence action for $32,500 without obtaining the required consent from CNA. The petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for this settlement. The Supreme Court initially granted approval, but the appellate court reversed and remitted due to insufficient documentation. Following the submission of additional evidence, the Supreme Court again granted approval, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court reviewed the relevant factors, noting evidence suggesting difficulty in proving serious injury and that respondent CNA suffered no prejudice from the delay. Despite the normal three-month limit for such applications, the Supreme Court's exercise of broad discretion in approving the settlement was not deemed an abuse. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentThird-Party SettlementJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncConsent RequirementDiscretionary AuthorityAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. ADJ10821696
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

PATRICIA MENDOZA vs. WESTERN OILFIELDS SUPPLY CO., INC. dba RAIN FOR RENT

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board matter is dismissed because the defendant withdrew its Petition for Reconsideration after a settlement agreement was reached. The parties had already submitted a Compromise and Release, and an order approving it was issued prematurely by the District Office while the reconsideration petition was pending. Consequently, the District Office lacked jurisdiction to issue the approval order at that time. The parties can resubmit the settlement agreement for a new approval order once the case returns to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalCompromise and ReleaseOrder ApprovingJurisdictionTrial LevelWCJPermissibly Self-insuredESIS
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 24,391 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