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

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. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
Case No. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

This opinion and order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal regarding the "baseball exemption" from antitrust liability. The MLB Defendants, joined by Television Defendants, sought to appeal an earlier ruling from August 8, 2014, which held that the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball was not shielded by the baseball exemption in cases like Laumann v. National Hockey League and Garber v. Major League Baseball. The court denies the motion, finding no substantial ground for difference of opinion on the baseball exemption's applicability, nor would an immediate appeal materially advance the litigation's termination. Furthermore, the court clarifies that the scope of the baseball exemption is a threshold merits issue, not a jurisdictional question.

Interlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentAntitrust LiabilityBaseball ExemptionSherman ActControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionMaterially Advance LitigationJurisdictional IssueMerits Issue
References
27
Case No. ADJ1350207 (SRO 0141409) ADJ7636521
Regular
May 08, 2012

MICHELE WOODRUFF vs. G\u0026K MANAGEMENT, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the prior order for a second QME panel in orthopedics. The Board found the administrative law judge prematurely ordered the panel before evidence was presented or the case was submitted for decision. The Board clarified that a judge can only order supplemental medical evaluations after trial if specific opinions are found deficient, not beforehand. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and eventual trial.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorSecond QME PanelMcDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceMedical Record DevelopmentTrial Level ProceedingsOpinion and OrderCumulative Trauma ClaimMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2017

Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.

This Opinion and Order addresses a divided question among district courts: whether settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of judgment require judicial or Department of Labor (DOL) approval. Citing the Second Circuit's reasoning in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the court concludes that such approval is indeed necessary. The decision emphasizes the FLSA's purpose of protecting employees from unequal bargaining power and the potential for abuse in private settlements. The court argues that FLSA claimants lack the capacity to enter binding agreements without court or DOL oversight. The order is certified for interlocutory appeal due to the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this controlling question of law among courts in the Circuit.

FLSARule 68Judicial ApprovalSettlement AgreementDepartment of LaborWorkers' RightsEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSecond CircuitDistrict Court Decision
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Babus v. Tronosky

This opinion and order addresses a civil rights action filed by a pro se prisoner against a New York City police officer, the NYC Police Commissioner, and two Kings County District Attorneys, alleging violations of his constitutional rights during his arrest and trial, along with pendent state claims. The court granted motions to dismiss from the Police Commissioner and District Attorneys, finding absolute prosecutorial immunity for the latter and no basis for respondeat superior liability or conspiracy for the former. Consequently, both federal and pendent state claims against these defendants were dismissed. However, the motion by the police officer to dismiss pendent state claims, based on failure to file a notice of claim under New York General Municipal Law, was denied due to ambiguity regarding the City of New York's status as a defendant and the nature of the alleged intentional conduct. The plaintiff was instructed to amend the complaint to clarify the parties involved.

Civil RightsPrisoner Pro SePolice MisconductProsecutorial ImmunityRespondeat SuperiorMotion to DismissPendent State ClaimsGeneral Municipal LawNotice of ClaimFederal Civil Procedure
References
10
Case No. MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

Koch v. Hicks

This Opinion and Order addresses a motion for class certification within a Multi-District Litigation concerning groundwater contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from a gasoline station. Plaintiffs sought to certify two subclasses: a Homeowner Subclass and a Medical Monitoring Subclass, bringing claims under Maryland law for public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability. The court granted certification for the Homeowner Subclass, finding it satisfied all requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and was maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1). However, the motion for certification of the Medical Monitoring Subclass was denied, with the court concluding that medical monitoring constitutes a form of damages under Maryland law rather than a distinct cause of action. The court also clarified that, in the context of class certification within MDL, the law of the transferor circuit (Fourth Circuit) applies over the transferee circuit (Second Circuit), following the Supreme Court's decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

Class ActionClass CertificationMulti-District LitigationRule 23MTBE ContaminationGroundwater ContaminationUnderground Storage TanksEnvironmental LawToxic TortHomeowner Subclass
References
46
Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award. The applicant's argument focused on alleged errors in the WCJ's Opinion on Decision regarding advances, not the Findings and Award itself. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders determining substantive rights or liabilities. Since the Findings and Award did not address advances or offsets, and no final order on that issue exists, the petition was denied. Any dispute regarding advances must first be litigated at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level
References
3
Case No. ADJ9317724
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

JUAN TORRES vs. LINEAGE LOGISTICS COLD STORAGE, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The applicant sought to overturn a Minute Order compelling an orthopedic QME evaluation, arguing the existing orthopedic panel was improperly obtained and preferred a treating doctor. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, as removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant's preference for a treating doctor did not override the WCJ's order for a QME evaluation requested to clarify a prior medical opinion regarding potential knee surgery.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedic QMEChiropractic QMEKnee SurgeryIndependent Medical OpinionMPNMedical Treatment AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianReconsideration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 28,867 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