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. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Formal Opinion No.

This opinion from the Chairman of the New York Workers' Compensation Board addresses the priority of income execution and income deduction orders, established by the 1985 Support Enforcement Act (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242), against other statutory deductions from workers' compensation awards. Historically, WCL § 33 provided broad exemptions for workers' compensation benefits. However, WCL §§ 206(2) and 25(4)(a) allow for reimbursement of disability insurers and employers for advance payments, respectively, and WCL § 24 establishes liens for attorneys' fees, traditionally enjoying highest priority. The 1985 Act amended WCL § 33 to make benefits subject to support enforcement and also stipulated that income executions and deduction orders take priority over other assignments, levies, or processes. The Board concluded that claims for attorneys' fees and reimbursements by disability insurance carriers and employers are to be deducted first from the workers' compensation award. The support enforcement remedies under CPLR §§ 5241 and 5242 then apply to the balance of the workers' compensation benefits paid to the employee. This approach ensures prompt payment to injured workers and prevents double payment issues.

Workers' CompensationSupport Enforcement ActIncome ExecutionIncome DeductionLien PriorityStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementAttorneys' Fees PriorityCPLR 5241
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Well Bilt Box Spring Corp.

An assignee for the benefit of creditors moved to disallow a claim for priority filed by the United Furniture Workers Insurance Fund. The fund sought $480 for unpaid group welfare insurance premiums, which accrued from September 1947 to April 1948 under a collective bargaining agreement. The assignee contended that the Debtor and Creditor Law section 21-a did not provide priority for such claims, arguing it applied to employee-contributed pension plans, not employer-paid insurance. The court referenced conflicting precedents from Matter of Seaboard Furniture Mfg. Corp. (Frey) and Matter of Hollywood Commissary, Inc. (Weintraub). Adopting the view of Justice Walsh, the court ruled that this was a contract matter between the employer and union, not a claim for wages, and noted the claim was made by the insurance carrier rather than the union or employees. Consequently, the court disallowed the claim for priority and granted the assignee's application to settle their account.

Priority ClaimAssignee for CreditorsInsurance FundCollective Bargaining AgreementWelfare InsuranceEmployer ContributionsDebtor and Creditor LawSection 21-aWage ClaimContract Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. RIV 41509
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

JUAN VALDEZ vs. PRIORITY PALLET, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal of the lien claimant's claim, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision was based on the finding that the lien claimant's motion to set aside the dismissal notice was timely filed. The Board noted that while the lien claimant did fail to appear at a hearing, potentially violating procedural rules, their timely filing warranted further consideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDue ProcessNotice of Intention to DismissRule 10562Failure to AppearGood CauseSanctionRescinded
References
1
Case No. ADJ8718778
Regular
Jul 06, 2015

BETOEL GOMEZ vs. UNITED PALLET SERVICES, CIGA

This case concerns applicant Betoel Gomez's claim for permanent disability due to a right hand and bilateral wrist injury. The defendant, United Pallet Services, sought reconsideration of a $21\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) improperly used an analogical rating rather than AMA Guides' scheduled ratings. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing the QME failed to adequately justify the analogical rating in his supplemental report. Ultimately, the Board amended the award to $10\%$ permanent disability, based on the QME's initial report which applied the AMA Guides to grip strength loss.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAUllico Casualty Companyliquidationpermanent disabilityWhole Person ImpairmentWPIAMA GuidesAlmaraz/GuzmanQualified Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arlan's Department Stores, Inc.

The case concerns a trustee's motion in a bankruptcy liquidation plan to classify employer's unemployment and FICA taxes on pre-bankruptcy Class C priority wage claims in Class E, which has no assets. The government argued for first priority as administration expenses or Class C priority. The court, citing Otte v. United States and In re Armadillo Corp., rejected the government's arguments, distinguishing between employees' and employer's taxes. It held that employer's taxes are direct obligations of the employer, not wages, and thus do not fall under the higher priorities of § 64(a) of the former Bankruptcy Act. Therefore, the court granted the trustee's motion, classifying these taxes as general unsecured claims in Class E, effectively denying them priority.

Bankruptcy LawEmployer TaxesFICAUnemployment TaxesWage ClaimsPriority ClaimsLiquidation PlanBankruptcy ActTrustee in BankruptcyCreditors' Claims
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Olga Coal Co.

The Chapter 11 Successor Trustee of Olga Coal Company objected to the priority status of claims filed by the State of West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Division, which sought administrative or tax priority for post-petition payments related to pre-petition workers' compensation injuries. The court denied administrative priority, ruling that the claims arose pre-petition from the date of injury. However, the court found the State’s reimbursement obligation met the criteria for an excise tax under federal and state law, distinguishing it from private surety claims. Consequently, tax priority was granted, but only for claims related to injuries that occurred within the three years immediately preceding the bankruptcy petition date, with the remainder treated as general, non-priority unsecured claims.

BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationClaim PriorityAdministrative PriorityExcise TaxPre-petition ClaimsGovernmental ClaimsSurety BondsWest Virginia LawChapter 11
References
30
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 143 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