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. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. 531945
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Alroy Richards

Claimant Alroy Richards appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially ruled that Richards did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the Board denied his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Richards claimed to have experienced pain while moving oxygen tanks at work in April 2017 but failed to seek timely medical treatment or report the incident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its credibility determinations and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the proof presented by the claimant was insufficient to demonstrate an accident occurred in the course of his employment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryEmployment ScopeUntimely NoticeBoard AffirmationCredibility of ClaimantSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical CausationReconsideration DenialAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05472 [187 AD3d 452]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2020

Richards v. Security Resources

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendant Security Resources' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff Alroy Richards' cross-motions. The court found that Security Resources timely moved to dismiss and that the plaintiff's denial of service was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation were dismissed for failing to state a cause of action. Negligence claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, and the individual defendant, Joseph Katanga, was found not to have been properly served, rendering discovery motions moot.

Dismissal of complaintMotion to dismissService of processAffidavit of serviceWrongful dischargeAt-will employmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressDefamationQualified privilegeNegligence claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.

The Chapter 11 debtor, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., moved to disallow James E. Parks' claim, arguing it was filed after the court-ordered bar date of October 30, 1990. Parks, a former customer, did not receive actual notice of the bar date, although the debtor was aware of his potential claim through letters from Legal Services. The court found that due process requires actual notice for known creditors and determined that the debtor had actual notice of Parks' asserted claim. Therefore, the court concluded that Parks was entitled to actual notice, which he did not receive, and granted an extension for his claim. Parks' proof of claim, filed on May 17, 1993, was deemed timely, and the debtor's motion to expunge was denied.

Bankruptcy LawProof of ClaimBar DateExcusable NeglectActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDue ProcessCreditors' RightsChapter 11Debtor in Possession
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves the appeal by the estate of Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., from a chancery court judgment dismissing a claim for death benefits against Shelton Security Service, Inc. The employee, a security guard, died of heart failure while on duty after a verbal confrontation with suspected shoplifters who threatened to kill him. The trial court initially dismissed the claim, ruling that the emotional stress was not extraordinary or unusual for his occupation. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Panel's decision, concluding that the threat of death constituted an unusual and abnormal emotional stimulus, thus reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeart FailureEmotional StressArising Out of EmploymentUnusual StressSecurity GuardCausationReversed and RemandedSudden Cardiac Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banzhaf v. ADT Security Systems Southwest, Inc.

Angie King and Frederick Banzhaf (represented by his parents) sued ADT Security Systems Southwest, Inc. after King was severely injured and Banzhaf was killed during a robbery at their workplace, Herman’s Sporting Goods, Inc. The robbery was committed by another Herman's employee and an accomplice. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, design defect, and DTPA violations against ADT, which had provided the security system for Herman's. ADT then filed a third-party claim against Herman's for indemnification based on their contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment to ADT against the plaintiffs and also granted ADT judgment against Herman's. The appellate court partially reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding the Banzhafs' DTPA claim due to a procedural issue, but affirmed the remainder of the judgment against the plaintiffs and ADT's judgment for indemnification against Herman's.

NegligenceDesign DefectDTPAIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySecurity SystemContract LawExpress Negligence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pinto v. Southport Correctional Facility

Claimant, a teacher at a maximum-security correctional facility, experienced severe head pains and disorientation, leading to a claim for workers' compensation benefits for work-related stress, depression, headaches, and memory loss. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding the presumption of work-related injury rebutted and concluding that the stress experienced was not greater than that usually encountered in his work environment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision to deny the claim on the merits. While the court disagreed with the Board's finding that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) due to personnel decisions, it upheld the Board's alternate basis for denial, stating that the claimant failed to show the stress was beyond what similarly situated workers experienced.

Workers' CompensationStress-related injuryMental injuryCausationPresumption of injuryRebuttal of presumptionPersonnel decisionWork environmentCorrectional facilityTeacher
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 25,910 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