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

Rapid Settlements Ltd. v. SSC Settlements, LLC

This case involves an appeal and mandamus proceeding filed by Rapid Settlements, Ltd. and Rapid Management Corporation (Rapid) against SSC Settlements, L.L.C. and Stone Street Capital, Inc. (SSC). Rapid challenged a final summary judgment related to the transfer of structured settlement payments from William Prante. Rapid sought to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing the dispute with SSC fell under an arbitration clause in their agreement with Prante, which also included a right of first refusal and a security interest. The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, vacated the trial court's denial of Rapid's motion to stay, and reversed parts of the summary judgment concerning Rapid's security interest and right of first refusal. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to SSC and its injunction preventing Rapid from compelling SSC to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ProceedingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentStructured SettlementRight of First RefusalSecurity InterestEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelContract Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Symetra Life Insurance v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Arena v. Crown Asphalt Co.

Thomas Arena (decedent) sustained a work-related foot injury in 1980, leading to workers' compensation benefits and subsequent renal failure. Decedent and his wife (claimant) filed a third-party medical malpractice action against treating physicians and the hospital, which was settled in 1988 through a structured settlement. A stipulation between the carrier and decedent outlined the carrier's offset credit against decedent's workers' compensation claim and reserved rights against future death benefits claims, but claimant was not a signatory. After decedent's death in 1993, claimant filed for death benefits, prompting the carrier to seek an offset credit from the third-party settlement proceeds. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the carrier entitled to a credit, but later reversed itself, ruling against any credit. The appeals court determined that the carrier sufficiently preserved its offset rights through a general release signed by both claimant and decedent. However, it found no clear agreement on the specific offset amount in the stipulation or settlement that applied to claimant's death benefits. Consequently, the Board's decision of zero credit was reversed, and the matter was remitted for a factual determination of the precise credit amount.

Offset CreditThird-Party SettlementDeath Benefits ClaimRenal FailureMedical MalpracticeStipulation AgreementGeneral ReleaseWaiver of RightsStructured SettlementApportionment of Damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kesick v. Ulster County Self Insurance Plan

Paul Kesick, a police officer, was involved in two automobile accidents, leading to workers' compensation claims for knee injuries. Kesick and his wife settled a personal injury action against the drivers for $50,000 and $75,000 without the consent of the Ulster County Self Insurance Plan, their workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court granted their application for a nunc pro tunc order approving the settlement but denied the carrier's request for a workers' compensation lien against the settlement proceeds. The carrier appealed, arguing it was entitled to a lien for amounts exceeding $50,000, which are not considered first-party benefits. The appellate court agreed, modifying the order by granting the carrier a lien of $5,969.49 to be held in escrow, preventing an impermissible double recovery for the petitioners.

Workers' Compensation LawLienSettlementThird-Party ActionFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Insurance LawDouble RecoveryAutomobile AccidentAppellate CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
3
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
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

Steele v. Staffmark Investments, LLC

Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to improper compensation and subsequent termination. The parties agreed to a settlement and filed a stipulation of dismissal, which the Court initially denied for lacking settlement terms and arguments on fairness. Subsequently, the parties filed a Motion for Settlement, arguing against the necessity of court approval or requesting an in camera review. The Court denied this motion, affirming that FLSA settlements require judicial approval due to the act's purpose and the inherent unequal bargaining power between employers and employees. The Court also rejected confidentiality for settlements, prioritizing public access and the FLSA's objective of worker awareness. The parties were ordered to either submit the settlement for approval by April 4, 2016, or proceed with litigation.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActSettlement AgreementCourt ApprovalStipulation of DismissalConfidentialityBargaining PowerWage and HourEmployment LawSixth Circuit
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Willis

The debtor, Trennis Earl Willis, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. An asset in his estate is a personal injury claim, for which he had a contingency fee contract with attorney Frank L. Supercinski. Supercinski sought approval for his fees ($20,000 plus expenses) from a $50,000 settlement of the personal injury claim and approval of a disbursement scheme. Both the Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected, arguing the contingency fee contract was executory and rejected by the estate. The Court, presided over by Judge Donald R. Sharp, found the contingency fee agreement to be executory and deemed rejected as not assumed by the Trustee. However, applying the common fund doctrine, the Court acknowledged Supercinski's entitlement to fees from the settlement proceeds with priority. Despite this, all of Supercinski's motions (for fees, settlement approval, and relief from stay) were denied due to procedural flaws, such as the settlement not being finalized or approved, and the lack of a settlement agreement copy. The Court clarified that the settlement check is property of the Debtor's estate and must be administered under bankruptcy rules, instructing Supercinski to file a proper application once the settlement is finalized and approved.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyContingency Fee AgreementAttorney's FeesExecutory ContractAutomatic Stay ReliefCommon Fund DoctrineQuantum MeruitTexas LawPersonal Injury SettlementBankruptcy Estate
References
29
Case No. 14-07-00880-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

Symetra National Life Insurance Company and Symetra Life Insurance Company v. Rapid Settlements, LTD

Symetra National Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Life Insurance Co. appealed a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award that directed them to make structured settlement payments to Rapid Settlements, Ltd., instead of the original payee, Paul Patterson. Symetra argued that the transfer lacked the required court approval under the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) and violated public policy, while Rapid Settlements asserted it was not a 'transfer' under SSPA, federal law preempted SSPA, and Symetra lacked standing. The court rejected Rapid's arguments, emphasizing that the SSPA mandates court preapproval for structured settlement payment transfers to protect payees and their dependents. Consequently, the court held that the arbitration award violated Texas public policy by effectuating an unapproved transfer. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the arbitration award was vacated.

Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)PreemptionStandingGarnishmentTransfer of PaymentsAnnuity IssuerTexas Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 10,926 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