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 United States Lines, Inc.

The United States Lines, Inc. and its Reorganization Trust (Debtors) moved to deny a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest filed by the Public Administrator of the County of New York, Administrator of the Estate of Alfredo Valverde (Claimant). The Claimant's original wrongful death action against U.S.L. resulted in a state court judgment after the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Cornelius Blackshear, found that the doctrines of full faith and credit, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were inapplicable, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over the claims allowance process in bankruptcy. Applying Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court disallowed all post-petition interest, whether pre- or post-judgment, classifying it as unmatured interest. However, the court allowed the portion of the claim representing pre-petition, pre-judgment interest, clarifying that the date of judgment entry does not determine whether interest is 'unmatured' as of the petition date. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the existence of indemnity insurance from the UK Club altered the allowability of the interest claim against the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawInterest on ClaimsPostpetition InterestPrepetition InterestUnmatured InterestChapter 11 ReorganizationClaims AllowanceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAutomatic Stay
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The court addressed two consolidated CPLR Article 78 proceedings concerning whether petitioners' dismissal from the Department of Sanitation was effective prior to the vesting of their deferred retirement allowances. Petitioners, Waldeck and Barbaro, applied for the allowance, which vests if an employee is not dismissed within 30 days of application. Respondents, the Department of Sanitation and New York City Employees’ Retirement System, contended that petitioners were dismissed before the vesting date. The court found discrepancies in the dismissal documentation, a lack of explanation from a key witness (Commissioner Sexton), and insufficient proof that the dismissal notices were properly served according to Civil Service Law § 76. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissals were not effective by the critical date, entitling petitioners to their vested retirement allowances.

Deferred Retirement AllowanceAdministrative DismissalCPLR Article 78Vested RightsDue ProcessService of NoticeCivil Service LawPublic EmployeesDepartment of SanitationNew York City Employees’ Retirement System
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Di Ponzio

The claimant was employed until June 20, 1993. On December 10, 1994, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a certificate making workers impacted by X-ray film imports eligible for trade readjustment allowances under the Trade Act of 1974. However, eligibility was specifically limited to workers separated from employment on or after July 11, 1993. The Board denied the claimant's request for an allowance because his separation date preceded this eligibility cutoff. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it to be supported by substantial evidence.

Trade Readjustment AllowancesEligibility CriteriaEmployment Separation DateTrade Act of 1974U.S. Department of LaborImport ImpactX-ray Film IndustryBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

The Appellate Division's judgment was reversed, and the Special Term's judgment in favor of appellant Hershkopf was affirmed. This decision was based on the finding that the arbitrator's allowance was lawful under sections 1457 and 1545 of the Civil Practice Act. Justices Lewis, Conway, Desmond, and Ftjld concurred with the decision. Chief Justice Lotjghran and Justice Thacher dissented, arguing for the Appellate Division's interpretation of the Civil Practice Act sections. Justice Dye did not participate in the decision.

AppealArbitrator's AllowanceCivil Practice ActJudgment ReversalJudgment AffirmationAppellate ReviewConcurring OpinionDissenting OpinionJudicial Panel
References
0
Case No. ADJ347040 (MON 0305426)
Significant
Apr 14, 2009

Lawrence Weiner, Applicant vs Ralphs Company, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, allows the submission of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional issues arising from the legislative repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, which pertains to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

VRMALabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealstatutory rightvested rightsghost statutessavings clauseen bancamicus briefs
References
18
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Apr 14, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study the legal issues presented by the defendant's petition, specifically concerning the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, and has ordered the allowance of amicus curiae briefs to address the jurisdictional questions.

Amicus briefsEn banc decisionVocational rehabilitationVRMARepeal of statuteLabor Code section 139.5JurisdictionRetroactive benefitsFindings and AwardWCJ
References
18
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant to allow for a more thorough study of the issues raised and to permit the filing of amicus curiae briefs by interested parties.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 ScheduleReconsiderationAmicus Curiae BriefsThreshold IssueFinal OrderEn Banc DecisionRebuttalPermanent Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 5900
References
16
Case No. ADJ1177048 (SFO 0487779)
En Banc
Apr 06, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Appeals Board grants petitions for reconsideration from both the applicant and the defendant to further study the issues raised regarding the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) and allows for the submission of amicus curiae briefs.

DFEC2005 Schedulediminished future earning capacityrebutting DFECthreshold issuereconsiderationen banc decisionamicus curiae briefjudicial noticelegislative history
References
19
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Mario Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE), State Compensation Insurance Fund Joyce Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Keenan & Associates, Adjusting Agent

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration in two consolidated cases, Almaraz and Guzman, to study the issues raised in a petition and allows for the filing of amicus curiae briefs by any interested person or entity.

WCABReconsiderationAmicus BriefsEn Banc DecisionAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityThreshold IssueRebuttalFinal OrderInterlocutory Decision
References
18
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,885 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