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. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doctor of Medicine in the House, P.C. v. Allstate Ins.

This case concerns a medical service provider plaintiff seeking $1,876.76 in no-fault claim benefits. The defendant insurance company denied the claim, citing that the fees were excessive under the workers’ compensation fee schedule and that prior reimbursements had exhausted the daily 8-unit limit for physical medicine procedures. The central legal question involved interpreting paragraph 11 of the Official New York Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, Physical Medicine (2010), specifically whether the 8-unit limit applied per provider or cumulatively across all claimants. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, clarifying that the 8-unit rule is an individual provider fee limitation and not an exhaustion regulation for all claimants, distinguishing it from the $50,000 basic economic loss limit.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleMedical Reimbursement8-unit RuleFee Schedule InterpretationInsurance LawPhysical MedicineStatutory InterpretationClaim DenialExcessive Billing
References
9
Case No. 533993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

Claimant Francisca Garcia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing her claim for death benefits. Her spouse, Miguel Garcia, a World Trade Center volunteer, died in 2016 from conditions established in his prior workers' compensation claim. Garcia filed for death benefits in 2020, which the Board ruled untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Board also determined that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A did not apply to a death benefits claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Article 8-A's exception to the two-year filing rule applied to the participant's disablement claim, not to a separate death benefits claim filed by a non-participant, thus the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A dissenting opinion argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 163, by mentioning "injury or death," indicated Article 8-A's applicability to death benefits, suggesting the matter be remitted to address causation and timely filing.

Death Benefits ClaimWorld Trade Center VolunteerWorkers' Compensation Law § 28TimelinessStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-ALatent ConditionsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderGastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseObstructive Sleep Apnea
References
12
Case No. 00-2341
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2002

Iwachiw v. NYC Brd of Education

Walter N. Iwachiw, acting pro se, initiated a federal action alleging a conspiracy to fix bid prices for computer-related equipment and services. The plaintiff sued the New York City Board of Education, various Boards of Cooperative Services (Boces defendants), Meizner Business Machines, Microsoft Corporation, and J & L Information Services. This federal complaint followed a state court action with similar allegations, which was dismissed. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended federal complaint under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied dismissal under Rule 8(a) but granted motions to dismiss for the Boces defendants, Meizner, and Microsoft due to claims being time-barred by the statute of limitations. While the motion to dismiss against the Board of Education was also granted, the plaintiff was given 30 days to file another amended complaint specifically concerning 1998 non-responsive bidder proceedings. Additionally, due to the plaintiff's history of vexatious litigation, the court issued a filing injunction, requiring him to seek leave before filing any new actions against the Boces defendants, Meizner, and Microsoft related to the alleged conspiracy.

Bid RiggingAntitrustCivil RightsConspiracyPro Se LitigationStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataFailure to State a ClaimFiling InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LoVerde v. 8 Prince Street Associates, LLC

Nicholas J. LoVerde, Jr., an employee of Timothy Kelly, suffered injuries from a scaffold fall while working on a building owned by defendants John Billone, Sr. and 8 Prince Street Associates, LLC. Plaintiffs initiated a personal injury action citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants appealed, contending plaintiff was not covered by Labor Law provisions due to how he was hired, and that his own actions caused the accident. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants had contracted for the work and failed to prove plaintiff's conduct was the sole cause of the incident.

Scaffold AccidentPersonal Injury LitigationLabor Law § 240(1)Building DemolitionProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationComparative NegligenceWorker Safety Regulations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Claim of Marcus v. City of Troy

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 8, 2005, which determined that the death of her husband, a truck driver/sewer maintenance worker for the City of Troy, Department of Public Utilities, was not causally related to his employment. The decedent died suddenly while driving a company truck with a coworker. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, citing the presumption in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 for deaths occurring during employment. However, the Board disagreed, finding the presumption rebutted by the employer’s evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer presented substantial medical evidence, based on the decedent's history of health issues, to support the determination that the death was unrelated to his employment, thereby successfully rebutting the presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 21Presumption of compensabilityCausationMedical EvidenceRebuttal evidenceUnexplained deathCardiac eventsEmployment-related deathBurden of proofAppellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. F & T International LLC

This case involves two undocumented construction workers, Gomez and Livicura, who were injured in a demolition accident on February 4, 2005. The property owner, F & T Int’l (Flushing, New York) LLC, and the general contractor, Top 8 Construction Corp., moved to compel further depositions of the plaintiffs regarding their immigration status and income tax returns to mitigate lost wage claims. The court, citing Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC, denied the defendants' motion, ruling that a worker's alien status is irrelevant for lost wage claims when no false documents were used. The court emphasized that the onus of verifying work authorization lies with the employer, not the employee, and highlighted the disingenuousness of employers raising immigration status concerns only after an injury, deeming it an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs.

Construction AccidentUndocumented WorkersLost Wages ClaimImmigration StatusEmployer SanctionsIRCAWorkers' RightsDemolition IndustryPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cossack v. Burns

Plaintiff Thomas Cossack filed suit under ERISA and New York State law against his union, pension fund, and its trustees to recover retirement pension benefits. After 39 years of service, Cossack alleges he was improperly granted only 8.8 years of pension credits due to the Local 12 Plan's break-in-service rules. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment due to non-compliance with local rules. It provided legal guidance on the applicability of ERISA, the standard of review for benefit denials, and the relevance of involuntary unemployment and notice of plan amendments to Cossack's break-in-service and estoppel claims. The court found genuine issues of material fact remain for trial.

ERISA LitigationPension Benefits ForfeitureBreak-in-Service RulesSummary Judgment DeniedEquitable Estoppel ClaimPromissory Estoppel ClaimPlan Amendments NoticeInvoluntary UnemploymentFiduciary DiscretionDe Novo Review Standard
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 7,246 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