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
Feb 27, 1964

Beirne v. Habel

The court considered two orders. An order entered on February 14, 1964, was unanimously affirmed without costs. Another order entered on February 27, 1964, which denied a motion to vacate a prior order appointing a receiver, was unanimously modified. The modification was made on legal and factual grounds, and in the exercise of discretion, to terminate the receivership upon the plaintiffs-appellants paying the receiver $100 plus actual expenses, including bond premium. The initial appointment of the receiver was deemed justified due to the parties' agreement in open court. However, the litigation settled and was discontinued within a week of the appointment, and the receiver reportedly did not take possession, receive funds, or perform significant services beyond qualifying.

receivershipmotion to vacatesettlementdiscontinuanceappellate decisionjudicial discretioncourt ordersexpensesbond premiumagreement in court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York Electrical Worker' Union

This case concerns a dispute over the validity of an election held by the New York Electrical Workers' Union after a period of receivership. Petitioner Maurice B. Jarvis challenged the election, alleging that no notice was given to members about the termination of the receivership or the annual meeting, and that a quorum was not present. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the application. On appeal, the court examined the union's by-laws regarding meeting notices and quorums, noting inconsistencies and non-compliance with the Membership Corporations Law. The appellate court found that while no statute or by-law explicitly required notice for annual meetings, the context of the receivership made it advisable. Critically, the court determined that the common-law rule for voluntary associations, where any number present constitutes a quorum, did not apply to a corporation governed by statute. Given that only 20 members were present out of 1,200, no valid quorum was established under any by-law provision or the Membership Corporations Law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal, ordered the election to be set aside, and mandated a new election with proper notice to all eligible members.

Corporate Election DisputeUnion GovernanceReceivership ImpactBy-law InterpretationQuorum RequirementsNotice of MeetingsGeneral Corporation LawMembership Corporations LawAppellate ReviewCorporate Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ornstein

The FDIC initiated an action in 1993 against George Kaminow and Michael Griffith, directors and officers of Central Federal Savings Bank, alleging malfeasance. Defendants raised several affirmative defenses, prompting the FDIC to file a motion in limine to strike them. The court, presided over by Judge Gleeson, granted the motion to strike defenses concerning the business judgment rule, applying a simple negligence standard under New York law, and pre-receivership regulatory conduct due to the distinction between FDIC Corporate and Receiver. Conversely, the motion to strike defenses related to post-receivership conduct and failure to mitigate damages was denied. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's O'Melveny decision abrogated the federal 'no duty rule,' thus allowing state comparative negligence laws to apply to the FDIC as an assignee.

Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationFDICBank DirectorsOfficer LiabilityBusiness Judgment RuleAffirmative DefensesMotion to StrikeFinancial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989FIRREAO'Melveny & Myers
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. New York State Labor Relations Board

This declaratory judgment action addresses whether the New York State Labor Relations Board (SLRB) has jurisdiction over a skilled nursing and health-related facility operated by the New York State Commissioner of Health as a receiver. The plaintiff, Robert M. Greenblatt, as the Commissioner's designee, contended that the receivership performed governmental functions, exempting it from SLRB jurisdiction under Labor Law § 715(2). The court examined prior cases involving state agency heads acting as receivers and found the plaintiff's arguments for differentiation unpersuasive. The court ruled that the employees of these facilities are not state employees and that denying SLRB jurisdiction would leave them unable to select union representation, especially given the receivership's prolonged duration. Consequently, the court declared that the SLRB does have jurisdiction over the employees for representational hearings and unfair labor practice matters.

JurisdictionState Labor Relations BoardReceiverPublic Health LawLabor LawSkilled Nursing FacilityHealth-Related FacilityCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. ADJ8514073 (MF) ADJ9995510 ADJ2721680 (FRE 0187462)
Regular
Sep 24, 2018

VICTOR VILLA vs. JOE CARDOZA DAIRY, PAULA INS. in receivership by CIGA, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, SECURITY NATIONAL administered by RISICO, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY administered by SEDGWICK

This case concerns a dispute over the dates of a cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's left knee, following an admitted 1998 specific injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend the injury period. The WCAB determined the date of cumulative trauma injury under Labor Code § 5412 was September 4, 2012, the date the applicant retained counsel and gained awareness of the cumulative trauma concept. Consequently, liability for the cumulative trauma injury under Labor Code § 5500.5 was established as September 4, 2011, to September 4, 2012.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJOE CARDOZA DAIRYPAULA INSCIGAINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WESTSECURITY NATIONALREPUBLIC INDEMNITYSEDGWICKVICTOR VILLASUBSEQUENT CUMULATIVE TRAUMA
References
0
Case No. ADJ7427357; ADJ7427846 ADJ7427807; ADJ7427721 ADJ7427560; ADJ7429915 ADJ7429913; ADJ7429912 ADJ7427816; ADJ7427731 ADJ7427716; ADJ7427554 ADJ7429914; ADJ7427420
Regular
Apr 12, 2012

DELVIN WILLIAMS vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS and ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY and FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, MIAMI DOLPHINS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by MULTI-LINE CLAIMS SERVICE, GREEN BAY PACKERS and HIGHLANDS INSURANCE GROUP, in Receivership

This case concerns a professional football player seeking reimbursement for medical-legal costs incurred in his workers' compensation claims against multiple teams. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that denied these costs. The Board held that a statute of limitations defense does not bar reimbursement of reasonable medical-legal expenses if the applicant is determined to be an employee. However, subject matter jurisdiction issues with certain defendants require further adjudication, and the San Francisco 49ers, who do not dispute jurisdiction, are ordered to reimburse these costs pending further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalMedical-Legal CostsStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionAffirmative DefenseCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuriesDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference Statement
References
6
Case No. ADJ3543960 (LAO 0789656) ADJ1691548 (LAO 0789657)
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

Patricia Soto vs. Mayfair Plastics, California Insurance Guarantee Association, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, Pacific National Insurance Company, Highlands Insurance Company

This case involves CIGA's petition for removal after a workers' compensation judge stayed CIGA's contribution claim against Highlands Insurance Company, which is in Texas receivership. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the stay, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the judge lacked jurisdiction to stay the petition based solely on Texas law without determining if Texas is a "reciprocal state" under the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act. The Board's review indicated Texas law meets some, but not all, UILA criteria for reciprocal status, leaving the issue unresolved.

CIGAHighlands Insurance CompanyUniform Insurers Liquidation ActUILAreciprocal statereceivershipliquidationPetition for ContributionPetition for Removalstay of proceedings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Studint v. LaSalle Ice Cream Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a former employee and shareholder of LaSalle Ice Cream Co., brought this action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), New York common law, and New York Penal Law. The plaintiff claimed constructive termination and asserted several stockholder's derivative claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss the ADEA claims and employment-related state law claims, finding them sufficiently inter-related for pendent jurisdiction. However, the court granted the dismissal of stockholder-related claims, including those seeking dissolution and receivership, as they were deemed likely to confuse the jury and prolong litigation, suggesting they be pursued in state court.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawConstructive TerminationShareholder DisputeStockholder Derivative ClaimsMotion to DismissPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtCorporate MismanagementFiduciary Duty
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cutler v. 65 Security Plan

The case concerns the financial distress of The 65 Security Plan, a Taft-Hartley multiemployer trust fund providing welfare benefits, which faces a significant deficit and numerous outstanding claims from health care providers and participants. Litigation costs from hundreds of lawsuits are depleting the Fund's limited assets. To safeguard these assets and establish an equitable distribution, the court granted a preliminary stay on all state and federal proceedings against the Fund and its beneficiaries. A Special Master, the Honorable Milton Mollen, was appointed to aid in asset maximization and settlement plan development. The court explores various legal devices, including bankruptcy, receivership, and class action, ultimately favoring a 'quasi bankruptcy' approach combining elements of these to achieve a swift and cost-effective resolution for all creditors through negotiated settlement.

Employee BenefitsTrust Fund InsolvencyPreliminary InjunctionAll Writs ActERISA LitigationBankruptcy EligibilityQuasi BankruptcyClass Action (Mandatory)Special Master AppointmentHealth Care Claims
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Voluntary Dissolution of Endicott Laundry Co.

This case addresses two disputed claims within the receivership of Gladding Laundry Company, Inc., regarding the validity of two mortgages on its real property. The first claim is from the State Bank of Endicott for $15,000, and the second, originally to Ralph E. Gladding and later assigned to Workers Trust Company, is for $10,000. The receiver challenged the mortgages, citing non-compliance with Section 16 of the Stock Corporation Law of 1909, which required two-thirds stockholder consent. The court, however, applied equitable principles, reasoning that since the corporation benefited from the loans and a supermajority of stockholders participated in or assented to the transactions, both the corporation and participating stockholders are estopped from disputing the mortgages' validity. Consequently, the court declared both mortgages valid and subsisting liens, with the State Bank of Endicott's mortgage having first priority.

Mortgage ValidityCorporate LawStockholder ConsentEquitable EstoppelReceivership ProceedingsCorporate GovernanceFirst MortgageSecond MortgageNew York LawBroome County
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 14 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