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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1992

A.A. Building Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union 580 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment from July 16, 1992, which granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union. An appeal from an earlier order dated March 9, 1992, which temporarily stayed arbitration for settlement facilitation, was dismissed as superseded. The court determined that the dispute, involving whether specific work should have been performed by the respondent's union members and consequently whether the employer should contribute to their benefit fund, was a jurisdictional dispute. Such disputes were explicitly excluded from the parties' arbitration agreement, thereby upholding the stay of arbitration.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeLabor UnionStay of ArbitrationContractual ExclusionCollective Bargaining AgreementNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 91 CV 5056; 92 CV 0128
Regular Panel Decision

Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Plaintiff Loral Fairchild Corporation (Loral) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, subsequently expanding it to include claims against National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (FSC) concerning patent ownership. NSC and FSC sought to dismiss or stay these additional claims, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of ongoing patent ownership litigation in a California state court. While acknowledging the presence of supplemental jurisdiction for the ownership claims, the court ultimately exercised its discretion to abstain from immediate adjudication. After evaluating factors such as the order of jurisdiction, forum convenience, protection of federal plaintiff's rights, and the potential for piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that a stay was the most appropriate course of action. Consequently, the federal actions were ordered to be stayed pending the resolution of the related patent ownership dispute in the California state court.

Patent infringementPatent ownershipSupplemental jurisdictionAbstention doctrineJudicial estoppelStay of proceedingsIntertwined claimsFederal court discretionCalifornia state courtNew York state law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1962

In re the Arbitration between Frank Chevrolet Corp. & Meyers

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 23, 1962. This initial order dismissed the petition, denied the petitioner's application for a stay of arbitration, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration under a collective labor agreement. The petitioner also appealed from a second order, issued the same day, which granted a motion for reargument but ultimately adhered to the original decision. The appellate court affirmed the order entered on reargument, with costs, and dismissed the appeal from the original order, stating it was superseded.

ArbitrationCollective Labor AgreementStay of ArbitrationAppealReargumentOrder AffirmedWestchester County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fire Insurance v. Fotinakos

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had denied an application to stay arbitration of an underinsured supplemental uninsurance motorists’ claim. The appellate court reversed this order, granting the petition and permanently staying the arbitration. The petitioner argued that it was entitled to reduce the amount payable under the supplemental uninsured motorists' coverage by all Workers' Compensation sums received by the respondent, which exceeded the policy limits. The court found this claim uncontroverted and also ruled that Regulation 35-D was inapplicable, as the subject insurance policy was issued prior to the regulation's effective date.

Underinsured Motorist ClaimWorkers' Compensation OffsetInsurance Policy InterpretationArbitration StayAppellate DivisionKings CountyRegulation InapplicabilityPolicy LimitsInsurance LawJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ7408183
Regular
Feb 09, 2016

GABRIEL LOPEZ vs. EXPRESS REGENCY PARKING, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves a dispute over conflicting stay orders on lien claims filed by Landmark Medical Management. The Appeals Board granted Landmark's Petition for Removal, rescinding a June 26, 2015 order that stayed proceedings due to criminal and civil indictments against Landmark. This rescinded order was superseded by an earlier, broader stay order from May 14, 2015, in a consolidated matter. The Board is consolidating this case with the prior stayed matters to ensure consistent application of a single stay order.

Petition for RemovalLandmark Medical ManagementPharmaFinance LLCMedRx Funding LLCSupplemental Minute Ordercriminal indictmentscivil complaintconflicting stay orderOscar ArreolaWestern Door & Trim
References
2
Case No. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
Case No. 21 MC 100
Regular Panel Decision

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

This opinion addresses motions to stay proceedings in lawsuits filed by thousands of workers, including Kirk Arsenault and Steve Zablocki, who claim respiratory and other injuries from 9/11 World Trade Center clean-up efforts. The court clarifies the scope of a prior Second Circuit stay order concerning appeals of immunity claims made by the City of New York and its contractors. Judge Hellerstein rules that the Second Circuit's stay applies to appealing defendants within the CM03-defined World Trade Center site. Consequently, defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to stay is granted, while defendant Verizon New York Inc.'s motion is denied without prejudice, requiring a further showing of its immunity defense. Cases against non-appealing defendants or those outside the CM03 area are generally permitted to proceed with discovery.

World Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-up WorkersRespiratory InjuriesImmunity DefenseMotions to StayAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealCase Management OrdersFederal JurisdictionStabilization Act
References
10
Case No. ADJ366995
Regular
Jan 31, 2011

MARVIN BRANSCOMB (Deceased), MABLE JEAN BRANSCOMB (Widow) vs. CITY OF COMPTON, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Compton's petition for a stay of a $\$250,000$ death benefit award. The award was for prostate cancer, determined to be work-related for a deceased deputy sheriff. The Board explained that it can effectively stay execution by withholding the certified copy of the award, which is its standard practice during pending appellate review. Therefore, a separate stay order is unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for StayFindings and AwardDeath BenefitsPetition for Writ of ReviewReconsiderationCertified Copy of AwardWithholding Certified CopyStay of ExecutionLabor Code § 5808
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 24,260 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