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
Aug 18, 2003

In re the Claim of Burdick

The claimant, a model builder for Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. in Rochester, Monroe County, voluntarily participated in a retirement incentive program and separated from employment on November 1, 2002. Valeo had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and was approved to move its compressor production operations to Mexico, leading to a reduction in its labor force. Following his separation, the claimant applied for a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his application, ruling that his separation was for a reason other than lack of work. The appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it rational based on testimony that the claimant had sufficient seniority and would not have been among those involuntarily eliminated had he not elected the incentive program.

Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationSeniorityBankruptcyWorkforce ReductionAppellate ReviewTrade Act of 1974Employment LawNew York State
References
5
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. POM 263315, ANA 311660, ANA 322880
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

Marta Zarate vs. Blue Banner Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that allowed a lien claim for outpatient surgery services in full, finding that the record lacked substantial evidence to prove the reasonableness of the fee. The Board rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the record, emphasizing that the lien claimant bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of its charges. The parties are to present evidence consistent with the *Kunz* decision to establish a reasonable fee for the services.

KunzOfficial Medical Fee Schedulelien claimantreasonable feeoutpatient surgery centerburden of proofprima facie caseusual feegross disproportionateevidentiary record
References
10
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. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. GRO 0031810
En Banc
Nov 13, 2007

Joey M. Costa vs. Hardy Diagnostic, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, holding that Labor Code section 4660 allows parties to present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating under the new PDRS, and the reasonable and necessary costs for such evidence, like vocational expert testimony, may be allowable under section 5811.

PDRSSB 899vocational rehabilitationexpert witnessrebuttal evidencepermanent disability ratingLabor Code section 5811medical-legal costsreasonable and necessaryWCJ
References
22
Case No. ADJ2911649
Regular
Nov 07, 2008

MARY MIRANDA vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM / WEST

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision allowing a pharmacy's lien in full, rescinding the original order. The case is remanded to the trial level because the lien claimant failed to prove the reasonableness of its charges, as required by law. While the defendant's procedural arguments were rejected, the lack of a reasonableness finding on the lien amount necessitates further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimHepps PharmacyIndustrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCumulative TraumaCompromise and ReleaseStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4903.5
References
3
Case No. ADJ8686864
Regular
Dec 23, 2015

JOSE MOLLINEDO vs. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, SPARTA INSURANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 mandates verification, and precedent allows dismissal for unverified petitions that are not cured or adequately explained after notice. The applicant failed to cure the defect or provide a compelling reason for its absence within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerification defectLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDismissalWCJ reportLien claimant
References
1
Case No. ADJ7890528
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

RUBEN CRUZ vs. PACIFIC RIDGE FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that allowed a lien for photocopy services. The defendant argued the lien for duplicating already-obtained medical records was improperly allowed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This was because the Board found the photocopy expenses were not reasonably and necessarily incurred when the injury was admitted and the records were duplicative.

Med-Legal Photocopylien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderrescindedmedical recordsLabor Code Section 4603.2medical-legal costsreimbursementapplicant's injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,827 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