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
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
Jun 30, 2010

John Giugliano, DC, P.C. v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff John Giugliano, DC, EC., as assignee of Laura Hebenstreit, initiated this action to recover first party no-fault benefits from defendant Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. The core dispute, following a trial on June 30, 2010, centered on the plaintiff's billing practices under the New York Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, specifically regarding the use of surgical CPT codes for chiropractic procedures. Defendant argued against the use of surgical codes and duplicate billing for a specific CPT code, while plaintiff maintained these practices were justified because the procedures were not listed under the chiropractic fee schedule and involved distinct treatment areas. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the procedures were properly billed according to the Fee Schedule, thereby entitling the plaintiff to reimbursement.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic BillingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleCPT CodesSurgical ProceduresCo-Surgeon BillingInsurance ReimbursementMedical Fee Schedule DisputesSpinal ManipulationMandibular Fracture
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Ruppert & Egelhofer

This case involves an appeal by the Brewery Workers Local Unions from a modification by the Appellate Division, First Department, which confirmed an arbitrator's award against them. The arbitrator had found the unions engaged in an illegal slowdown, violating their collective bargaining agreement, and issued an injunction to stop it. The unions challenged the arbitrator's authority to issue injunctive relief, citing Civil Practice Act § 876-a, and also raised procedural issues regarding conditions precedent to arbitration and sufficiency of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, ruling that parties can voluntarily confer injunctive powers to arbitrators, thus harmonizing the policies of arbitration and the Civil Practice Act. The court also dismissed the unions' procedural arguments, finding no failure to comply with arbitration prerequisites and sufficient evidence of a slowdown.

ArbitrationInjunctionLabor DisputeCollective BargainingSlowdownUnionEmployerAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2001

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 580

Union members Iran Bennett, Charles Brown, Leroy Pratt, and Angel Vasquez moved to hold Local 580 in contempt for non-compliance with a 1978 consent judgment and subsequent court orders regarding discriminatory practices and an affirmative action program. Local 580 cross-moved to dismiss the motion, citing lack of standing, insufficiency of pleading, and failure to exhaust contractual remedies. The court granted the motion to intervene for Bennett, Brown, Pratt, and Vasquez, finding they had standing under Rule 24 or Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that their claims were timely. The court dismissed Trancoso's motion to intervene without prejudice, as his claim did not allege discrimination against Local 580. Local 580's cross-motion to dismiss was denied, with the court finding the union members' allegations sufficient and the back pay order not extinguishing rights to individual relief for post-1991 discrimination.

DiscriminationContemptConsent Judgment EnforcementIntervention (Rule 24)Third-Party Beneficiary (Rule 71)Affirmative ActionApprenticeship ProgramsHiring Hall PracticesRacial Discrimination in EmploymentFederal Civil Procedure
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of several hundred current and former homeowners, brought an action against several dozen mortgage originators and servicers, alleging various claims including fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful trade practices, breach of contract, negligence, and slander of title, primarily related to inflated appraisals and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) system. Defendants filed motions to sever and dismiss. The Court granted the defendants' motion to sever, dismissing all plaintiffs except the first-named plaintiff, Leela Abraham, without prejudice due to misjoinder under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court then found that Ms. Abraham failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for all her asserted causes of action, citing lack of specificity for fraud-based claims, failure to plead activity in New York for GBL § 349 claims, inadequate contract terms for breach of contract, and other deficiencies. Consequently, all of Ms. Abraham's claims were dismissed in their entirety. The Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint, concluding that the proposed amendments would be futile.

Mortgage LitigationHomeowner ClaimsFraudulent AppraisalsMERS SystemMisjoinderRule 12(b)(6) DismissalFailure to State a ClaimMotion to SeverAmended Complaint FutilityClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City v. Department of Homeless Services

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Case No. ADJ7069357
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

CHERYL MCMILLIN vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision and imposed $300 in sanctions against defendant's attorney and law firm. The sanctions were for failing to comply with procedural rules, including improper citation practices and impugning the applicant's attorney. The attorney apologized but did not fully address all procedural violations. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJPetitionObjection to Sanctionszealous representationunpublished case
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 8,937 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