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. ADJ8293282
Regular
Jun 28, 2017

Troy Blankenship vs. Southwest Offset Printing, Zurich American Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Removal filed by Southwest Offset Printing and Zurich American Insurance Company. The WCAB held that removal is an extraordinary remedy, only granted if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate these criteria based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's analysis. Therefore, the defendants can raise their issues during the trial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionTrial JudgeSouthwest Offset Printing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Figelman v. Goldfarb

This case involves an appeal by an employer and the State Insurance Fund from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the Fund's request to offset future workers' compensation benefits against a claimant's third-party settlement proceeds. The claimant, injured in 1988, received a third-party settlement of $225,000 in 1992, after which the Fund sought to offset a $5,520 award for lost earnings during an initial abeyance period (March-August 1988). The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the offset, a ruling upheld by the appellate court. The court reasoned that the $5,520 award constituted "basic economic loss" under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) and was therefore exempt from offset provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (4) due to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a). Additionally, the Fund's failure to explicitly reserve its right to offset against this specific award at the time of the third-party settlement further supported the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party SettlementOffset RightsBasic Economic LossInsurance LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial DisabilityAutomobile Accident ClaimState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2008

In the Matter of Ramroop v. Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc.

This case involves a motion filed by Sameer M. Ashar et al. seeking leave to appear as amici curiae in the appeal of Ronnie Ramroop against Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc. and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the submitted motion on April 28, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the Court issued its decision regarding this procedural request. The motion for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal was granted. The proposed brief was accepted, with instructions for service and filing within seven days.

Workers' CompensationAmici CuriaeMotion PracticeAppellate ProcedureNew York Court of AppealsProcedural RulingLeave to AppearBrief FilingAppeal GrantedLabour Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corporate Printing Co. v. New York Typographical Union No. 6

Corporate Printing Company, Inc. sought to stay an arbitration initiated by New York Typographical Union No. 6 concerning contributions to a Benefit and Productivity Fund and to dismiss the designated arbitrator, Walter L. Eisenberg. Corporate Printing also sought to initiate a second arbitration under "League Option A." The court considered whether Corporate Printing, having withdrawn from the 'League,' could exercise rights previously granted to the League under a 1975 collective bargaining agreement. The court ruled that Corporate Printing could not unilaterally dismiss the arbitrator nor invoke rights explicitly granted to the League. Claims of arbitrator bias and procedural non-compliance were deemed premature or matters for the arbitrator. Consequently, the initial arbitration proceeded, while Corporate Printing's requested arbitration was stayed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployer-Union DisputeAgency LawEstoppelArbitrator BiasProcedural DefectsLabor LawFederal Court JurisdictionWithdrawal from Association
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2000

Claim of Martin v. Levest Electric Corp.

The claimant, having suffered work-related injuries, pursued both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party personal injury action, which was subsequently settled. A contention arose concerning the workers' compensation carrier's entitlement to offset future benefits against the net settlement proceeds, as outlined in Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the carrier had correctly preserved its right to this offset. On appeal, the claimant argued that the carrier had consented to the settlement, thereby waiving its offset right, and that a court possessed the authority to waive such a right. The appellate court upheld the Board's finding, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of carrier consent to the settlement, and reaffirmed that a court cannot override a carrier's explicit reservation of its offset rights.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsCarrier ConsentFuture BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionBoard RulingReservation of Rights
References
4
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

Jamal v. Gohel

This case involves an appeal by the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to extinguish SIF's right to claim a credit or offset against Workers' Compensation death benefits and to compel reinstatement and retroactive payment of these benefits. The plaintiff had initially received death benefits from SIF after her husband's work-related death, and also won a jury award in a wrongful death action against a third party. SIF later asserted a right to a credit or offset against the death benefits for the jury award proceeds, suspending payments, which the plaintiff challenged. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that primary jurisdiction for determining the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law, particularly regarding an insurer's right to claim a credit or offset, rests with the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the Supreme Court.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInsurance FundCredit or OffsetPrimary JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyStatutory RightsDeath Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Bibb (In Re Delta Air Lines)

Delta Air Lines, Inc., the Debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against the Government Services Administration, seeking a declaratory judgment to prevent the Government from deducting pre-petition overpayments for services from post-petition amounts owed. Delta argued that such an offset was prohibited by the automatic stay provisions of Sections 362(a)(3) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Government asserted its right to offset under the Transportation Payment Act and the equitable doctrine of recoupment. The court found that the Transportation Payment Act does not create a payment scheme allowing such deductions and that the claims did not arise from a 'single integrated transaction' for equitable recoupment. Therefore, the court concluded that the Government is not entitled to set off its pre-petition claims against its post-petition liabilities, granting Delta's request for declaratory judgment.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StaySetoffRecoupmentGovernment ContractsTransportation Payment ActDeclaratory JudgmentPre-petition ClaimsPost-petition LiabilitiesCreditor Protection
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 235 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