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

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grogg v. General Motors Corp.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by individual employees and unions against General Motors, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concerning pregnancy and maternity leave policies. A settlement stipulation was submitted, but it excluded a subclass of female employees who were forced to take involuntary maternity leave before December 20, 1971. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy denied approval of the settlement, deeming it unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable. The court found that the stipulation improperly extinguished valid claims of this excluded subgroup without offering adequate consideration or a merits hearing, despite their high likelihood of prevailing.

Class ActionTitle VIIEmployment LawPregnancy DiscriminationMaternity Leave PoliciesSettlement ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCivil Rights Act of 1964Due Process RightsBackpay Awards
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anita Foundations Inc. v. ILGWU National Retirement Fund

Plaintiffs, corporations in the ladies' garment industry, brought an action under ERISA and MPPAA against the IGLWU National Retirement Fund and its co-trustees, Jay Mazur and Joseph Moore. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to prevent defendants from reopening final settlements concerning withdrawal liability, which plaintiffs had previously paid in full. The defendants argued that these settlements were voidable due to a mutual mistake of law, citing a subsequent Ninth Circuit decision (*Geltman*) that interpreted ERISA Section 4225 differently, potentially increasing the plaintiffs' withdrawal liability. The court found that the parties entered the settlements aware of the legal uncertainty and thus bore the risk of future judicial interpretations. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, barring the defendants from avoiding the settlements, and denied the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and their motion to amend their answer.

ERISAMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension PlansSettlement AgreementsMutual Mistake of LawSummary JudgmentContract LawRetroactivity of LawPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. ADJ9171209
Regular
Mar 19, 2019

MARIA VILLICANA vs. MOPKIN, uninsured, MITSUWA MARKETPLACE, SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding that neither party can unilaterally withdraw from a fully executed Compromise and Release settlement agreement before it is approved or disapproved. The Board rescinded the prior order suspending the settlement and clarified that the agreement remains binding until a formal decision is made. The case was returned to the trial level for a hearing to determine the adequacy of the settlement. The applicant's original finding, stating she could not withdraw, was affirmed but amended to apply to both parties.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationUninsured EmployerMitsuwa MarketplaceSompo Japan InsuranceBroadsireWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdequacy of SettlementDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Baldwin Union Free School District

Francesco Pignataro, a custodian, and his union, Civil Service Employees Association, filed an Article 78 petition challenging the Baldwin Union Free School District's refusal to reinstate him after he attempted to rescind a resignation letter and settlement agreement. The agreement, signed in July 2009, stipulated Pignataro's resignation and a $50,000 payment, contingent on Board approval on August 12, 2009. Prior to Board approval, Pignataro sought to withdraw his resignation and repudiate the settlement, but the Board proceeded with approval and refused his withdrawal. The court determined the settlement was a binding and enforceable contract, and Pignataro had no right to unilaterally rescind his resignation under its terms. Consequently, finding no fraud or overreaching and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act inapplicable, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ResignationSettlement AgreementContract EnforcementUnilateral RescissionCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Article 78 PetitionDue ProcessOlder Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Grievance Arbitration
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,501 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