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

Herman v. Hospital Staffing Services, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sought an injunction against Kenneth A. Welt (Bankruptcy Trustee for HSSI), Capital Factors, Inc., and Ron Lusk (President of HSSI) to prevent violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's 'hot goods' provision. HSSI failed to pay statutory wages to employees, leading to the shipment of 'hot goods' (patient reports and billing documents) in interstate commerce. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim (arguing documents were not 'goods' and employees were local), and requesting the court to abstain due to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied all motions, affirming its jurisdiction under the police power exception to the automatic bankruptcy stay, confirming the documents as 'goods' under FLSA, and ruling the action was not duplicative. The court also held Ron Lusk personally liable as an 'employer' under FLSA.

Fair Labor Standards ActBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayPolice Power ExceptionHot Goods DoctrineInterstate CommerceWage ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationCorporate Officer Liability
References
45
Case No. W2024-01001-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Dustin Keith Gamble v. Madison Darlene Gamble

The mother, Madison Darlene Gamble, appealed a divorce proceeding, arguing the trial court failed to properly apply statutory best interest factors in its parenting plan determination. The Court of Appeals found a lack of specific findings regarding the children's best interest and the application of relevant statutory factors in the trial court's order, despite testimony from the father. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the lower court's judgment concerning the parenting plan. The case was remanded for the entry of an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the children's best interest, with the existing Permanent Parenting Plan remaining in effect until further orders.

Divorce ProceedingsChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationBest Interest of ChildDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewFindings of FactConclusions of LawRemand OrderStatutory Factors
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milz v. J & R Amusement Corp.

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on May 20, 1981. The central issue is whether the appellants successfully overcame the statutory presumption (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 21, subd 4) that the injured employee’s death did not result solely from intoxication while on duty. The Board, relying on an autopsy report and Trooper O’Brien's testimony, found that the carrier failed to overcome this presumption, concluding that other factors contributed significantly to the employee's demise. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the strong statutory presumption is rebutted only when evidence unequivocally shows intoxication as the sole cause, a heavy burden for the appellants. Despite a high alcohol concentration in the decedent's body, the court noted contributing factors like the decedent working all day, consuming only four drinks, acting normally before driving, and the accident occurring on a dark, curving road. Thus, the employer and carrier failed to establish intoxication as the exclusive cause of death.

Intoxication defenseWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory presumptionBurden of proofDeath benefits claimAppellate reviewAccident causationSole causeEvidence insufficiency
References
3
Case No. 09-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Interflow Factors Corporation v. Hilton Holdings, LLC

This case involves a dispute between Interflow Factors Corporation, a factoring company, and Hilton Holdings, LLC, an account debtor. Interflow purchased accounts owed to Gulf Coast Security & Investigation by Hilton, and Hilton was notified of this assignment. Despite the notification, Hilton later paid Gulf Coast directly instead of Interflow, totaling $155,152.58. Interflow sought to collect these funds from Hilton, arguing that under UCC section 9.406, Hilton was obligated to pay the assignee. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Hilton and denied Interflow's. The Court of Appeals reversed both decisions, holding that the Factoring Agreement constituted a valid security agreement and that Hilton could not rely on estoppel or a Rule 11 Agreement between Interflow and Gulf Coast to avoid its obligation to Interflow. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

Factoring AgreementAccount DebtorAssignment of AccountsUniform Commercial CodeSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawBreach of ContractRule 11 Agreement
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06518 [210 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Paul Revere Life Insurance Company appealed decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions for claimant William K. Hoyt Jr. and others. The Board determined that Paul Revere's contract with the claimant did not satisfy all seven requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) and that the parties' conduct was inconsistent with the statutory exclusion, thus establishing an employment relationship under the common-law test. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that both the written contract and the parties' actual conduct must conform to the statutory provisions for an insurance agent's services to be excluded from the definition of employment. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion of an employment relationship, citing factors such as the claimant's work schedule, reporting requirements, and Paul Revere's training and oversight. The decision clarified that a mere 'verbatim inclusion or rote incantation' of the statutory provisions in a contract is insufficient if actual conduct contradicts them.

Unemployment InsuranceInsurance AgentsEmployment RelationshipCommon Law TestLabor Law § 511Statutory ExclusionAppellate ReviewUnemployment BenefitsInsurance Sales IndustryContractual Provisions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ehlinger

This case concerns an appeal by New York Underwriters, a worker's compensation insurer, challenging an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award of death benefits to the statutory beneficiaries of the deceased worker, Clarence G. Ehlinger. The insurer initially filed an appeal in district court, mistakenly naming the deceased worker as the sole defendant. After the statutory 20-day appeal period expired, an amended petition was filed correctly identifying the beneficiaries as defendants. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by this court. The court ruled that the original petition naming the deceased was a nullity and did not confer jurisdiction over the beneficiaries, and the subsequent untimely amendment failed to cure this jurisdictional defect. The beneficiaries were thus entitled to stand on the IAB award.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory BeneficiariesMistaken IdentityParty MisnomerTexas LawAppellate ProcedureDeath Benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ1177048
En Banc
Sep 03, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable, the burden of which rests with the disputing party. It affirms that a primary method of rebuttal is to challenge a component element, such as the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor, by providing an individualized factor consistent with statutory requirements.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttablePrima Facie EvidencePermanent Disability RatingLabor Code section 4660RAND dataIndividualized Adjustment FactorWhole Person Impairment
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. ADJ7419350
Regular
Apr 27, 2015

MARLON WHITLEY vs. BELL PLASTICS, THE HARTFORD

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's attorney fee split, rescinding the original order. The WCJ failed to adequately consider all statutory factors for a reasonable attorney fee, specifically the responsibility assumed, care exercised, and results obtained, relying too heavily on estimated hours. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, development of the record, and a new decision. This new decision must properly consider all relevant factors mandated by Labor Code section 4906 and WCAB Rule 10775.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's Fee SplitLabor Code section 4906WCAB Rule 10775Findings and OrderSanctionHourly Attorney's FeesGood Faith NegotiationTime Expended
References
7
Case No. POM 0231129
Regular
Jun 03, 2008

PEGGY MAYER SPIER vs. BRIDGECREEK RETIREMENT HOME, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees from a workers' compensation settlement. The WCJ initially divided the remaining $10,500 in fees based solely on the length of representation, awarding $9,450 to the applicant for self-representation and $1,050 to the former attorney. The former attorney sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ improperly ignored statutory factors like responsibility, care, time, and results obtained. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and remanded the case for a new fee determination based on all four statutory criteria.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeesCompromise and ReleasePropria PersonaLien ClaimantAgreed Medical ExaminerThoracic Outlet SyndromeLabor Code Section 4906(d)Rule 10775
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,487 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