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. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
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. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. Claim No. 8, Claim No. 14
Regular Panel Decision

In re Pioneer Carriers, LLC

This case concerns objections filed by Pioneer Carriers, LLC (the Debtor) against two proofs of claim by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) for alleged unpaid unemployment taxes under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The central issue revolved around determining whether truck drivers operating the Debtor's trucks were employees or independent contractors. Applying the TWC's 20-factor test, the Court found that a substantial majority (14 out of 19 applicable factors) indicated independent contractor status. Consequently, the Court sustained the Debtor's objections, ruling that the truck drivers were independent contractors and thus disallowing the TWC's claims in their entirety. However, the Court noted that a portion of the 2014 claims related to initially hired employees would be subject to further determination.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusUnemployment CompensationTexas Workforce Commission (TWC)Bankruptcy LawTexas Labor Code20-Factor TestControl TestDebtorClaims Objection
References
45
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. 535434
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin

Claimant Kimberly McLaurin, a train operator for the New York City Transit Authority, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging she contracted COVID-19 and suffered consequential psychological injury due to workplace exposure. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding insufficient medical evidence of COVID-19 contraction and that the stress experienced was not greater than similarly situated workers. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the disallowance of the COVID-19 contraction and consequential injury claims due to lack of medical proof. However, it reversed the decision regarding the alternative claim for direct psychological injury, finding the Board improperly applied a disparate burden. The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration of the psychological injury claim consistent with the guidance in *Matter of Anderson v City of Yonkers* to determine if an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event existed and if a causal connection to the alleged injury was present.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryCausationWorkplace ExposureMedical EvidenceStress-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Seatrain Lines, Inc., operating as a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11, objected to a proof of claim filed by the BSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund. The Pension Fund sought $323,163.00 in withdrawal liability, asserting Seatrain was an 'employer' under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 due to its prior engagement of stevedores for longshoremen services. Seatrain argued it was not an employer because the longshoremen were hired, paid, and controlled by independent stevedores, not Seatrain directly. The court examined common law indicia of employment and congressional intent behind the Multiemployer Act. It concluded that Seatrain was neither a common law employer nor an employer under the Multiemployer Act, and thus had no withdrawal liability. The Pension Fund's claim was consequently ordered expunged.

BankruptcyMultiemployer Pension PlanWithdrawal LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorLongshoremenERISAChapter 11Proof of ClaimClaim Objection
References
3
Case No. 88, 89, 90, 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly McLaurin; In the Matter of the Claim of Sheldon Matthews; In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa Anderson; In the Matter of the Claim of Bolot Djanuzakov

Four claimants (three transit workers and one teacher) sought Workers' Compensation Law benefits in 2020, alleging psychological injuries like PTSD from workplace COVID-19 exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claims, stating the stress experienced was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced," thus not constituting a compensable "accident." The Appellate Division reversed, arguing the Board erred by not considering claimants' vulnerabilities and applying disparate burdens compared to physical COVID-19 claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Board's decisions, clarifying that individual vulnerabilities are immaterial and affirming the "greater stress" standard for compensability.

Workers' Compensation LawPsychological Injury ClaimsCOVID-19 Workplace ExposurePost-Traumatic Stress DisorderCompensable Accident StandardEmotional Stress CriteriaSimilarly Situated WorkersAppellate Division ReversalCourt of Appeals DecisionLegislative Amendments
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 25,821 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