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
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. WCK0071378
Regular
Aug 07, 2008

KEN RYERSON vs. NESTLE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK

This case involves a worker's compensation appeal concerning temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation rates. However, the parties submitted a compromise and release agreement for $140,000.00 to settle all claims, including potential death benefits for dependents. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the applicant's best interest, considering the release of death benefits and the absence of specific vocational rehabilitation protections.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation Delay RateThomas FindingRogers ReleaseDeath BenefitsCumulative Industrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeckSpineBack
References
2
Case No. 04-04-00182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2004

Sandra Silva De Tamez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Juan Guadalupe Tamez, (Deceased) and as Next Friend of Denise Silva De Tamez, a Minor Child, (APPELLANT) Michael G. Willoughby, (APPELLANT) v. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Sandra Silva de Tamez and Michael G. Willoughby against a summary judgment in favor of Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc. (SMT). Tamez, representing the estate of Juan Guadalupe Tamez, and Willoughby had sued SMT under the Wrongful Death Act and Survival Statute following a fatal tractor-trailer accident. SMT's defense was based on pre-injury release agreements signed by Tamez and Willoughby, which SMT argued released it from liability. The appellate court reviewed the enforceability of these agreements, addressing issues such as fair notice, meeting of the minds (including Tamez's English literacy), the presence of valid consideration, and public policy arguments related to employment relationships (statutory or borrowed servant). The court concluded that the release agreements were valid and binding, satisfying all contractual requirements, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary Judgment AppealWrongful Death ActSurvival StatuteRelease AgreementWaiver and ReleaseFair Notice RequirementsExpress Negligence DoctrineConspicuousnessContractual RequirementsMeeting of the Minds
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2004

De Tamez v. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc.

Sandra Silva de Tamez, Alicia Montalvo de Tamez, and Michael G. Willoughby appealed summary judgments rendered in favor of Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc. (SMT). Tamez had sued SMT and Willoughby for wrongful death and personal injuries following a tractor-trailer accident. SMT's defense relied on pre-injury release agreements signed by Tamez and Willoughby, which purportedly released SMT from liability due to negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that the release agreements were enforceable as standard third-party releases, having satisfied fair notice and consideration requirements. The court also determined that the appellants were not statutory or borrowed employees of SMT and that the release did not violate public policy.

Pre-injury releaseSummary Judgment AppealContract EnforceabilityWaiver of LiabilityNegligence ClaimsWrongful Death ActSurvival StatuteFair Notice DoctrineExpress Negligence RuleConspicuousness Requirement
References
22
Case No. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916) ADJ6979901
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO

This case concerns applicant Deborah Rollins' petition to reconsider the denial of her request to set aside a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the original decision that the C&R, including a broad general release of claims, was valid and could not be set aside. Applicant argued the general release was boilerplate, she was unaware of its scope, and she was incompetent due to her medical condition. The Board found the general release enforceable based on the applicant's signature and her attorney's testimony that it was explained. The Board also found insufficient evidence of incompetency or grounds for unilateral mistake to invalidate the agreement.

Compromise and ReleaseGeneral ReleaseSet Aside AgreementLabor Code section 5803IncompetencyUnilateral Mistake of FactBoilerplate LanguagePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseGood Cause
References
2
Case No. M2007-01210-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2008

Rebecca Woody v. A.W. Chesterton Company

An insulator, Wayne Woody, and his wife, Rebecca Woody, filed suit against multiple corporations after Mr. Woody developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a 1980 release agreement from a prior asbestos-related lawsuit barred the current claims. The trial court denied these motions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that the 1980 release bars claims for injuries, including mesothelioma, resulting from pre-release asbestos exposure. However, the release does not bar claims related to asbestos exposure that occurred after the agreement was signed. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureProduct LiabilityRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentTort LawComparative NegligenceContract InterpretationFuture ClaimsOccupational Disease
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Riese Organization, Inc.

Plaintiffs, former maintenance workers, were terminated and signed severance agreements releasing all employment-related claims, including those under human rights laws, in exchange for severance pay. Approximately three years later, they filed a lawsuit against their former employer, A.R.O. Construction Corp., alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the releases barred the claims. While plaintiffs contended the releases were procured by duress and fraud, the appellate court determined that plaintiffs had ratified the agreements by accepting the severance payments and failing to promptly repudiate the releases. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSeverance agreementGeneral releaseContract ratificationDuressFraudMotion to dismissAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malcolm v. Honeoye Falls Lima Central School District

Plaintiff Bernice Malcolm sued Honeoye Falls-Lima Central School District alleging unlawful discrimination based on race, sex, and age, hostile work environment, unfair scrutiny, retaliation, and breach of a Settlement Agreement. Malcolm had previously resigned and signed a Release barring all pre-July 16, 2007 claims, except for Workers' Compensation and breach of the Settlement Agreement. The District moved to dismiss, arguing the Release barred the federal claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the discrimination and retaliation claims were covered by the Release and no post-release discrimination was alleged. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law breach of contract claim, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSettlement AgreementReleaseMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Supplemental Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ4139709
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

JORGE HERRERA vs. ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration from a non-final Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which is procedurally improper. Simultaneously, a different judge approved a Compromise and Release Agreement on the same day the petition was filed, an action beyond the judge's authority once the petition was pending. The Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration and, on its own motion, granted reconsideration of the approved Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Order Approving Compromise and Release was vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration of the agreement.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalMandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and Release AgreementNotice of Intention to DismissWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJEAMSLabor CodeFinal Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,221 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