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

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Plaintiff Orrin Anderson, a debtor, had his credit card debt with Credit One discharged in bankruptcy, but the debt remained on his credit report as 'charged off.' Anderson reopened his bankruptcy case and filed a class action complaint against Credit One for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. Credit One moved to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Bankruptcy Court denied. Credit One appealed the denial to compel arbitration as of right and sought leave to appeal the denials to strike class allegations and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied Credit One's motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction or interlocutory appeal for the additional issues.

Bankruptcy Discharge InjunctionClass Action WaiverSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPendent Appellate JurisdictionArbitration AgreementFederal Statutory ClaimsContempt PowerPunitive DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
49
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Capital Bus. Credit LLC v. Tailgate Clothing Co., Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
Case No. ADJ1749318 (OAK 0338628)
Regular
Nov 03, 2015

EDGAR PUENTE vs. MACY'S WEST

This case involves Macy's West seeking removal of an order denying their petition for a $500 credit related to a missed QME appointment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, finding that summary denial of the credit petition would cause prejudice. The Board amended the original order to defer the issue of the credit petition until the applicant's underlying claims are settled or tried. This allows Macy's to present evidence and arguments for the credit at a later, more appropriate stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition for CreditQME appointmentLabor Code section 5811Petition for Creditmedical-legal costmissed appointment feecompensable consequencehypertension
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1983

Blessinger v. Ortiz

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted in part an application by sergeants in the New York City Police Department concerning credits for alternative answers on promotional examination 1613. The appellate court modified this order, directing that respondents provide credit for additional alternate answers for specific questions (22, 31, 36, 37, 69) and that question 63 of the examination be deleted. The court otherwise affirmed the original order. Applying the standard from Matter of Acosta v Lang, the court ruled that an answer given by a candidate is acceptable if it is "as good as" the key answer, highlighting that arbitrary selection of a single correct answer where two are equally valid is impermissible. The case details the rationale for modifying the credits based on the Patrol Guide and CPL 140.50.

Promotional ExaminationPolice DepartmentCivil ServiceExamination QuestionsAlternate AnswersPatrol GuideCPL 140.50Arbitrary DecisionLieutenant Promotion
References
1
Case No. ADJ8345837
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

FRANCISCO MORA vs. TIP TOP ARBORIST; TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's order denying the defendant's third-party credit. The Board found the WCJ erred by treating the defendant's Notice of Credit as a petition and denying it without affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. This violated the defendant's due process rights, rendering the original order void. Therefore, reconsideration was granted, and the prior order was rescinded.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationThird Party CreditFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeNotice of CreditDue ProcessWCAB Rule 10450Void Ab InitioRescinded
References
7
Case No. ADJ7318098, ADJ7318105
Regular
Jun 16, 2015

ERLENE ROCHA vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order denying the defendant's petition for credit. The defendant sought credit for an alleged overpayment of temporary disability benefits. The Board found the initial denial to be a final order, thereby allowing for reconsideration. However, the petition for credit was denied without prejudice, as it was deemed premature pending resolution of potential future medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJTemporary Disability BenefitsCreditOverpaymentFinal OrderDeclaration of ReadinessWithout Prejudice
References
5
Case No. ADJ3507926 (MON 0335218)
Regular
Mar 04, 2013

Douglas Maida vs. GEP Entertainment Services, AIG Claim Services, Inc.

The applicant's attorney sought to withdraw from representation due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, primarily stemming from the applicant's frustration over a credit issue. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying withdrawal was not a final order. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and allowed the attorney's withdrawal. The case is returned to the Presiding Judge to address the unresolved credit issue, potentially through a settlement conference with the applicant appearing in pro per.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJWithdrawal of AttorneyCumulative TraumaStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityCreditThird Party Case
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. ADJ3887642 (MON 0244638) ADJ2350388 (MON 0241177)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

MARION BARNES vs. JOHN RIORDAN PLUMBING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that the defendant waived its claim for credit of overpaid temporary disability indemnity. This waiver occurred because the defendant failed to challenge a previous WCJ order from July 2009 that determined the issue had already been waived. The Board affirmed that the July 2009 order was a final order because it determined a substantive right of the parties. Therefore, the defendant could not relitigate this waived issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Associationliquidationcovered claimscredit for overpaymenttemporary disability indemnitywaiverfinal ordersubstantive rightreconsideration
References
3
Case No. ADJ9615369, ADJ9615370, ADJ10928806
Regular
Jun 19, 2018

CATALINA REYES QUINTANILLA vs. TARZANA FIVE-FOUR CORNERS INVESTMENT, PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case concerns Defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order approving a $50,000 settlement for Applicant's workers' compensation claims. Defendant argued the order incorrectly failed to credit $5,913.87 in permanent disability advances paid to Applicant. However, the Compromise and Release agreement clearly indicated zero permanent disability advances and explicitly settled that issue. The Appeals Board found no evidence of mutual mistake and denied reconsideration, ruling that Defendant's failure to ensure the credit was included in the agreement constituted a unilateral mistake due to their own neglect.

Compromise and ReleasePermanent Disability AdvancesPetition for ReconsiderationOrder ApprovingWCJUnilateral MistakeMutual MistakeNeglect of Legal DutyContract InterpretationWaiver of Reimbursement
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 24,439 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