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
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. 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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08244
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2017

Matter of New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Murray Bresky Consultants, Ltd

This appeal concerns the allocation of settlement proceeds from a defunct group self-insured trust. The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, as administrator of the Manufacturing Self Insurance Trust Fund, sought judicial apportionment of settlement funds recovered from third parties. Murray Bresky Consultants, Ltd, a former member of the trust, objected to the Board receiving all proceeds and asserted a counterclaim for its share and an accounting. The Supreme Court granted the Board all proceeds and dismissed Murray Bresky's objections. The Appellate Division modified this decision, ruling that Murray Bresky was entitled to share in the jointly-recovered settlement proceeds and that the Board must file a verified accounting, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustSettlement ProceedsJudicial ApportionmentVerified AccountingCPLR Article 77Contractual InterpretationTrust DeficitAppellate ReviewFiduciary Duty
References
13
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

In re the Estate of Green

This proceeding involves an uncontested application for leave to settle and compromise a wrongful death action stemming from a fire on December 4, 1980, which resulted in the death of the decedent, survived by a spouse and three children. The proposed structured settlement totals $5,650,000, comprising a cash payment and annuities purchased through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, designed to provide guaranteed periodic payments of $37,674,000. The court addresses several issues, including the propriety of attorney's fees, the allocation of annuity costs among beneficiaries based on the Kaiser formula, and potential modifications to equalize shares among the children. The court found the proposed allocation unacceptable as it granted the widow significantly more than her Kaiser share and penalized the children, and also identified drawbacks in the guardian ad litem's suggestion due to its impact on the youngest child from inflation and a substantial reduction in their Kaiser entitlement. The decision concludes by proposing modifications to the guardian's plan, including increasing annual support and adjusting shares between the middle and youngest child, and ultimately remands the matter for reconsideration due to the changes affecting the parties and the widow's annuity.

Wrongful Death SettlementStructured SettlementAnnuity AllocationPecuniary LossDependency PeriodBeneficiary SharesKaiser FormulaGuardian Ad LitemAttorney's FeesEstate Distribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bopp v. Wiest

This is a case of first impression concerning the application of a workers' compensation lien to a wrongful death settlement involving beneficiaries who are not statutory dependents. The decedent's estate received $50,000 in workers' compensation benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b) following a workplace death, as there were no dependents. The estate's coexecutrices secured a $60,000 wrongful death settlement on behalf of the decedent's adult children. Liberty Mutual, the workers' compensation carrier, asserted a lien against this settlement. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, ruled that the 1990 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b) made the distinction between dependents and distributees irrelevant in this context. Consequently, the court approved the settlement but confirmed that the proceeds are subject to Liberty Mutual's workers' compensation lien, ensuring that adult children receiving benefits through the estate do not have a superior position to minor dependents receiving direct benefits.

wrongful deathworkers' compensationliensettlementstatutory interpretationdependentsdistributeesNew York lawfirst impressionsubrogation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,483 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