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 the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law
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. ADJ10130162
Regular
Oct 26, 2016

WANDA JONES vs. ALTA BATES MEDICAL CENTER, administered by SUTTER HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer argued Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) barred the claim, as the applicant was engaged in off-duty recreation. However, the Board found the injury occurred on employer premises within the scope of employment, applying the "premises line rule" of the going and coming rule. The applicant's intent to engage in a walk after leaving the premises did not negate compensability for an injury sustained before exiting the employer's parking garage.

WCABLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)going and coming rulepremises line ruleoff-duty recreational activitypost-shiftparking garagestairwellnursing assistantbad faith denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Robles

Judge Mikoll, J., dissents from a decision that found a claimant guilty of misconduct, leading to his termination on July 18, 1977. The employer's witness stated the claimant, a food service worker, was observed drinking beer in a park during his lunch break. The claimant denied both drinking and violating any company rules. The employer failed to produce any rule prohibiting employees from leaving the premises or consuming alcohol off-premises during lunch, with only an outdated contract prohibiting on-premises drinking. Mikoll, J. argues that the record lacks substantial evidence of misconduct, as an employee's actions on their own time, not affecting their job performance, are generally not subject to employer control. Citing Matter of Llano [Levine], the dissent concludes that the board's decision should be reversed.

MisconductTermination of employmentLunch break policyOff-duty conductAlcohol consumptionEmployer rulesLabor contractsSubstantial evidenceDissenting opinionWorkers' rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1979

Orbon v. Pine Lane Poultry

Claimant, an employee for 12 years, sustained lower back and pelvis injuries on September 18, 1976, when a tractor he was operating toppled over. The accident occurred while he was attempting to extricate a coemployee's truck from mud on the employer's premises, assisting the coemployee in collecting firewood. Although operating the employer's equipment without permission was a strict rule and not part of his usual duties, the Workers’ Compensation Board found the injuries compensable. The appellate court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's ruling, citing implied consent from a supervisor and potential benefits to the employer through premises clearance and improved employee morale.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTractor OperationCoemployee AssistanceEmployer Rules ViolationImplied ConsentEmployee MoraleSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. City of New York

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) promulgated "Health Care Rules" to deduct six cents per fare from taxi drivers for health care services and disability coverage. Petitioners, including taxi drivers, challenged these rules, arguing they were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court annulled the rules but initially denied restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the annulment, finding the TLC exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in establishing the deductions. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the petitioners' request for restitution of the improperly deducted funds.

New York City Taxi and Limousine CommissionHealth Care RulesUltra ViresSeparation of PowersArbitrary and CapriciousRestitutionTaxi DriversDisability CoverageRegulatory AuthorityAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 7,042 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