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 Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. ADJ11328427, ADJ11328686
Regular
Dec 04, 2019

MARK DEPETERS vs. FRITO LAY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Mark Depeters has reached a proposed settlement while his Petition for Reconsideration was pending before the Appeals Board. To allow the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to review this settlement, the Board has granted the reconsideration petition. The WCJ's prior decision is rescinded and the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the proposed settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the original decision may be reinstated.

WCABFrito LayAce American Insurance CompanySedgwick ClaimsPetition for ReconsiderationWithdrawalProposed SettlementRescind DecisionReturn to Trial LevelWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ13604184
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

While this matter was pending reconsideration, the parties reached a proposed settlement. To allow the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to review the settlement, the Appeals Board has rescinded the original decision. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. This is not a final decision on the merits; if the settlement is not approved, the WCJ may reinstate the original decision, from which further reconsideration can be sought.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSettlementRescindedReturned to Trial LevelWCJAdministrative Law JudgeProposed SettlementFurther ProceedingsDecision After Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gurung v. White Way Threading LLC

This Opinion & Order addresses a proposed settlement agreement in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) action between plaintiff Sidar-tha Gurung and defendant White Way Threading LLC. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer declined to approve the settlement due to two critical issues. First, the agreement contained an unacceptably overbroad general release of claims that courts in this District routinely reject, as it extended far beyond the wage-and-hour disputes at issue. Second, the proposed attorney's fees of $12,000 for Abdul Hassan, Esq., representing over 57% of the net settlement, were deemed unreasonably high and significantly exceeded the typical one-third ceiling for FLSA actions in this District without sufficient justification. The Court provided the parties with options to revise the agreement, abandon settlement for litigation, or stipulate to a dismissal without prejudice.

SettlementFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawAttorney's FeesGeneral ReleaseJudicial ReviewWage and HourSettlement AgreementUnreasonable FeesOverbroad Release
References
15
Case No. ADJ13552154
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ANDRANIK DAVOUDIAN vs. RNR BUILDERS, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

While this matter was pending on reconsideration, the parties reached a proposed settlement. Since the District Office is precluded from acting on a case during reconsideration, the Appeals Board will rescind the decision from which reconsideration was sought. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. If the settlement is not approved, the WCJ may reinstate the original decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationProposed SettlementRescindReturn to Trial LevelWorkers' Compensation JudgeVan Nuys District OfficeRNR BuildersState Compensation Insurance FundAndranik Davoudian
References
0
Case No. ADJ12601654; ADJ12598756
Regular
Jun 17, 2025

MARCY RODRIGUEZ vs. VICTOR VALLEY MEMORIAL PARKS, SUNSET HILLS, ICW GROUP

While this matter was pending on reconsideration, the parties reached a proposed settlement. Due to this, the Appeals Board will rescind the decision from which reconsideration was sought and return the matter to the trial level. This allows the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any pending issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationProposed SettlementRescinded DecisionTrial LevelWCJReinstating DecisionFinal DecisionCommissionersDeputy Commissioner
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. ADJ17849976
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ESTEFANY MICHELLE OSORIO vs. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Appeals Board observed a proposed settlement while reconsideration was pending. Citing California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10961, which prohibits the District Office from acting on a case under reconsideration, the Board rescinded the prior decision from which reconsideration was sought. The matter is returned to the trial level, allowing the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) to review the proposed settlement. Should the WCJ not approve the settlement, the original decision may be reinstated, at which point any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration. This decision does not address the merits of the issues pending reconsideration.

ReconsiderationRescinded DecisionReturned to Trial LevelProposed SettlementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJVan Nuys District OfficeSpace Exploration Technologies CorporationCorvel CorporationAdjudication Number
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,030 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