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

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Case No. ADJ8118860
Regular
Jul 25, 2012

REBECCA BURSON BROWN vs. NEC ELECTRONICS, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal seeking to overturn a prior administrative order denying their request for a third-party credit without prejudice. The defendant argued a due process violation, while the applicant suggested a settlement was anticipated. The Appeals Board denied removal because the prior denial was without prejudice, allowing the defendant to refile with proper documentation regarding net recovery and employer negligence. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the WCJ's procedural ruling.

Petition for RemovalThird Party CreditLabor Code section 3861Employer NegligenceDue ProcessWCJ OrderWithout PrejudiceNet RecoveryApplicant ObjectionWCAB Rule 10843
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruickshank v. Dukes

The defendant moved to amend her answer to include the affirmative defense of workers’ compensation exclusivity. The motion was based on the claim that the plaintiff's injuries occurred during special employment with Queensboro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and were caused by the negligence of a coemployee (the defendant). Additionally, the plaintiff had received workers' compensation benefits from her general employer, Tempositions Health Care, Inc. The lower court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, citing that leave to amend should be freely granted when the amendment does not plainly lack merit and there is no showing of prejudice or surprise. The court found merit in the defendant's defense, highlighting the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law for injuries sustained in the course of general or special employment, even when caused by a coemployee. Plaintiff's testimony regarding supervision by Queensboro raised factual issues concerning her special employment status, thus justifying the proposed amendment. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of prejudice due to delay, stating that tardiness alone does not bar an amendment without significant prejudice, and waiver of a workers' compensation defense is only accomplished by ignoring the issue until final disposition.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmploymentCo-employee NegligenceLeave to Amend PleadingAffirmative DefensePrejudice and DelayCPLR 3025(b)Workers’ Compensation Law § 10Workers’ Compensation Law § 11Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6)
References
21
Case No. ADJ1327924
Regular
Jun 24, 2013

FRUCTUOSO CONTRERAS vs. RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS NORTH, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order taking a lien off calendar was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, finding significant prejudice to the defendant. This was due to the lien claimant's failure to pay the required lien activation fee for a pre-2013 lien. Consequently, the Board ordered the lien dismissed with prejudice for this statutory violation.

Lien activation feePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissal with prejudiceLabor Code section 4903.06Declaration of Readiness to ProceedLien conferenceInterlocutory orderFinal order
References
12
Case No. ADJ10290065
Regular
Nov 20, 2019

HOWARD ROSS (deceased), SUSAN G. ROSS vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Removal. The Defendant sought to remove an order denying their Petition to Change Venue without prejudice, arguing significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The WCAB found the Defendant failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the case will proceed without removal, allowing discovery and hearings to continue.

Petition for RemovalVenue PetitionIndustrial InjuryAsbestos ExposureSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAppeals BoardExtraordinary RemedyDiscovery
References
1
Case No. ADJ9400578
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

GERRIT VELD vs. CLIPPINGER CHEVROLET, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE, INC., SAFECO INSURANCE

Defendant sought removal of this workers' compensation case, alleging the WCJ's statements showed bias against them and would cause prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the statements were preliminary remarks based on submitted evidence. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to establish. Defendant also did not follow proper disqualification procedures.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasirreparable harmpreliminary remarksformal disqualificationsignificant prejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryleukemiamechanic
References
1
Case No. ADJ8310199
Regular
May 11, 2016

MARTIN MENDEZ vs. SC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, ULTIMATE PERSONNEL SERVICES, AIG for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Defendant AIG sought removal of an order joining it as a party, arguing prejudice and irreparable harm due to a prior dismissal without new evidence. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify this discretionary remedy. The Board cited that AIG failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board was denied.

Petition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeParty DefendantReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIndependent ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5310
References
2
Case No. ADJ10249111
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

Steven R. Crosby vs. DWB Security Services

The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought review of a non-final order dismissing the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) without prejudice. The Board treated this as a petition for removal, granted it, and rescinded the dismissal order. This action was taken due to the potential for significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the applicant, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation that the UEBTF was improperly dismissed.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderFinal OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,804 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