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. ADJ8811286
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

Roy Lehman vs. Walgreens, Zurich American Insurance Company

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed the finding that Roy Lehman is permanently and totally disabled due to an industrial injury to his low back and psyche. Defendant Walgreens appealed, arguing the finding of permanent total disability was improper due to a lack of apportionment and reliance on incorrect rating schedules. The Board found substantial medical and vocational evidence supported the total disability finding, including expert opinions that Lehman was unemployable and not amenable to rehabilitation even after considering apportionment. The Board also found the vocational expert's reports met the substantial evidence standard despite defense challenges.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWalgreensZurich American Insurance CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesRoy LehmanOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderpermanent total disabilityapportionmentLabor Code Section 4663
References
2
Case No. 13-cv-4732 (NRB)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2014

FirstBank Puerto Rico v. Barclays Capital Inc. (In re Lehman Bros.)

This appeal arises from the insolvency proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. FirstBank Puerto Rico challenged the sale of bonds it had posted as collateral to a Lehman entity for derivative transactions, which were subsequently sold to Barclays Capital Inc. The District Court affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's judgment, which granted summary judgment to Barclays. The court held that FirstBank lost its property interest in the bonds when Lehman Swaps rehypothecated them to Lehman Brokerage, and therefore, FirstBank had no right to reclaim them from Barclays, who purchased them in a bankruptcy sale. The court also affirmed the sanctions against FirstBank for violating the Bankruptcy Court’s anti-suit injunction.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsInsolvencyDerivative TransactionsCollateralRehypothecationRepo AgreementsAsset SaleAnti-Suit InjunctionSummary JudgmentContempt Order
References
51
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. 16 Civ. 5813
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.)

This appeal was brought by RMBS Trustees against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) challenging a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order from June 27, 2016. The order disallowed and expunged certain proofs of claim filed by the RMBS Trustees against LBHI. The RMBS Trustees argued that the order was based on a claims resolution protocol that did not apply to some of their claims and that it preserved their right to prove certain claims through statistical sampling. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order, concluding that the RMBS Trustees had effectively abandoned their 'Transferor Loan' claims by not submitting them under the established Protocol. Additionally, the court found that the RMBS Trustees' attempt to reserve 11,000 'Covered Loan' claims for statistical sampling, without first submitting the required documentation under the Protocol, was not permissible. The court emphasized that the RMBS Trustees had multiple opportunities to clarify the Protocol's scope or pursue their claims but failed to do so, thus upholding the expungement.

Bankruptcy ClaimsRMBS LitigationStatistical SamplingClaims ProtocolLoan Repurchase AgreementsExpungement OrderDue Process RightsAppellate ReviewSecuritized MortgagesCreditor Claims
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Burrell Orchards, Inc.

The case involves Paulette Jones, widow of Roy Jones, appealing a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Roy Jones suffered a work injury in 1996, resulting in permanent total disability, with benefits paid until his death in 2017. Paulette Jones filed a death benefits claim and sought an upward adjustment to the average weekly wage and reimbursement for home health care services provided to her late husband. The Board denied these requests, citing the doctrine of laches. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision regarding laches, finding the delay in asserting rights was explained by the decedent's lack of representation and conflicting wage evidence. The court concluded that the Board's application of laches was improper, modifying the decision and granting the motion to reopen the injury claim.

Workers' Compensation LawLaches DoctrineAverage Weekly Wage ModificationDeath BenefitsReopening ClaimPermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewHome Health Care ReimbursementSpinal Cord InjuryEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lehman v. Kornblau

The plaintiff, Martin A. Lehman, an orthopedic surgeon, initiated a lawsuit against a large group of defendants, including government officials and insurance entities, alleging a conspiracy to maliciously prosecute him for insurance fraud. The core of his claim involves an entrapment scheme using undercover "patients" who later allegedly perjured themselves during grand jury testimony. The court ruled on motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part, resulting in the dismissal of several claims and defendants. Specifically, claims for conspiracy, unwarranted search, perjury, and entrapment were dismissed entirely, as was a general constitutional claim. However, claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution against certain county and postal service defendants, and a defamation claim against District Attorney Dillon, A.D.A. Kornblau, and Nassau County, were allowed to proceed. The court also deferred decisions on various immunity defenses, allowing for further discovery.

Malicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestInsurance FraudCivil Rights LitigationSection 1983DefamationProsecutorial ImmunityQualified ImmunitySovereign ImmunityGrand Jury Perjury
References
66
Case No. ADJ888335 (MON 0330155)
Regular
Jan 14, 2013

ROY MAYES vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Pasadena's petition for reconsideration of a finding that they violated Labor Code section 132a by discriminating against Roy Mayes. The Board found that Mayes' termination shortly after returning from a work-related injury, despite a prior evaluation indicating he met job requirements, constituted evidence of being singled out. Despite the employer's claim of poor performance, the Board deferred to the judge's credibility findings, which found the employer's evidence inconsistent. Therefore, the employer's petition for reconsideration was denied.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationprobationpoor performanceFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationprima facie caseaffirmative defenseindustrial injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lehman v. Bergmann Associates, Inc.

Maria Lehman sued her former employer, Bergmann Associates Inc., alleging sex-based discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation under Title VII, and equal pay violations under federal and New York law. Chief Judge William M. Skretny considered Bergmann's motion to dismiss. The court partially granted and partially denied the motion, allowing claims related to hostile work environment, demotion, a performance improvement plan, and a reduced bonus to proceed. Claims of constructive discharge, denied promotion, and Equal Pay Act violations were dismissed, the latter with leave to amend.

Title VIICivil Rights ActHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEqual Pay ActEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissConstructive DischargePerformance Improvement PlanSex-based Discrimination
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2003

Lehman Brothers, Inc. v. Wu

This memorandum order addresses a motion to dismiss brought by third-party defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. against third-party plaintiff Wei Wu's claim for contribution. Wei Wu was previously accused of copyright infringement by plaintiff Lehman Brothers, Inc. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the Copyright Act, either explicitly or implicitly, or federal common law, establishes a right to contribution between a primary and an ancillary tortfeasor in copyright infringement cases. The court concluded that neither the Copyright Act nor federal common law provides for such a right to contribution. Consequently, the motion to dismiss filed by Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. against Wei Wu's claim for copyright contribution was granted.

Copyright InfringementContribution ClaimThird-Party LitigationMotion to DismissFederal Common LawCopyright ActAncillary TortfeasorPrimary TortfeasorJudicial InterpretationStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.

Eddie Gray sued Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., and three individual defendants for employment discrimination under Title VII, New York Executive Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, along with unlawful termination under New York's whistleblower statute. Defendants moved to dismiss various claims. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing portions of the Title VII claims as time-barred, all Title VII claims against individual defendants, and the claims under the whistleblower statute and New York City Human Rights Law entirely. The court found that Gray's 1987 and 1989 Title VII claims were time-barred, not falling under the 'continuing violation' exception. It also ruled that individual defendants cannot be held personally liable under Title VII and dismissed those claims. Finally, Gray's whistleblower claim was dismissed as time-barred, and his New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIITime-Barred ClaimsWhistleblower StatuteNew York City Human Rights LawIndividual LiabilityContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsRetaliatory TerminationRacial Discrimination
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 67 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