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

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. AHM 0124082 AHM 0124083 AHM 0124085 AHM 0146447 AHM 0146449 SBR 0329311
Regular
Oct 29, 2007

JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, alleging errors in the stipulated agreement regarding injured body parts, indemnity amounts, and the applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d). The Board denied the petition, upholding the validity of the stipulations absent a showing of good cause to set them aside, especially given the applicant was represented by counsel at the time of agreement. The case is returned to the trial level solely for the correction of identified clerical errors in the stipulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Clerical ErrorsGood CauseWithdrawal of StipulationInadvertence
References
3
Case No. ADJ6835156
Regular
Apr 13, 2018

ANA RIVERA vs. PHARMAVITE, LLC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a stipulation approving a lien payment. The defendant claimed the stipulation was invalid because the lien was subject to a stay under Labor Code § 4615, which they were unaware of at the time. The Board dismissed the petition, ruling that the defendant should have first presented this issue, including evidence regarding the stay, to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The defendant is now directed to seek a hearing before the WCJ to determine the applicability of the stay and the validity of the stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and Order to Pay Lien ClaimantLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4615Automatic StayCriminal ChargesFraudWCJTrial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ10135147
Regular
Jan 11, 2016

DEANNA BARNETTE vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a stipulated award, and returned the case to the trial level for further inquiry. The defendant sought to set aside the award, arguing mutual mistake of fact regarding credit for employer disability plan payments, which they claimed would lead to overpayment. The Board agreed that the stipulations' validity, specifically whether there was good cause to set them aside due to mistake, needs to be determined by the trial judge. This decision allows for an examination of the applicant's understanding and the factual basis of the original stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardMutual Mistake of FactPermanent Disability IndemnityEmployer's Disability PlanUnjust EnrichmentOverpaymentGood CauseSetting Aside StipulationsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buitoni Products, Inc. v. Nappi

This case addresses an arbitration dispute where the court determined that a valid arbitration, as stipulated by article XV of the contract, had not occurred. The agreement mandated the presence of all arbitrators at hearings, but only three of the six committee members attended the August 3, 1948 meeting. As a result, any business conducted at this meeting could not form the basis of a valid award. The petitioner's participation in these proceedings was not deemed a waiver of rights, given that the present arbitrators were only authorized to make recommendations, not binding decisions. The alleged award of August 6, 1948, explicitly stated 'recommendations' and 'suggestions', rendering it legally null. Consequently, the court found no basis for reopening an arbitration hearing that had never validly taken place. The order appealed from was reversed, and the motion was granted in favor of the appellant.

ArbitrationContract DisputeArbitrators PresenceAward ValidityWaiver of RightsBinding DecisionJudicial ReviewOrder ReversedMotion GrantedCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1998

Stoll v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an appeal regarding a stipulation of settlement in a personal injury claim, involving a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff initially refused to sign the release, asserting that his continuing workers' compensation benefits should remain unaffected, contrary to his attorney's counsel. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division reversed this order, finding that the plaintiff's attorney, despite a factual dispute over actual authority, possessed apparent authority to enter into the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienStipulation of SettlementAttorney AuthorityApparent AuthorityMediationVacate StipulationAppellate ReviewNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1998

Bouloy v. Peters

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioners' application to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance. The application was found untimely, having been filed more than two years after the petitioners became aware of the grounds for vacatur, despite the stipulation being signed much earlier in June 1993. Additionally, the court noted that any action by petitioner Hardie Bouloy against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, as the injury occurred during employment by a co-worker operating a vehicle owned by Peters. The order was unanimously affirmed.

Stipulation of DiscontinuanceVacatur ApplicationTimelinessWorkers' Compensation LawCo-worker InjuryEmployment InjuryVehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewSupreme Court DecisionAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. City of New York

Plaintiff initiated a civil rights action against the City of New York, individual police officers, and Centre Firearms Co., Inc. following an alleged assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution in 1982. Plaintiff sought to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, claiming it was mistakenly applied to all defendants instead of only Centre Firearms. District Judge MacMAHON denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that the alleged mistakes by counsel were not grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court further awarded $500 in attorneys' fees to the defendants, noting that vacating the stipulation would not benefit the plaintiff as the federal claims lacked merit and state claims were time-barred.

Civil Rights ActionMotion to VacateStipulation of DiscontinuanceFed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)Excusable NeglectAttorneys' Fees AwardedPendent JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsFalse ArrestMalicious Prosecution
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,028 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