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

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Massi v. 198 Chelsea Corp.

This action, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), concerns a settlement agreement reached between plaintiff Carr Massi and defendants 198 Chelsea Corp. and Shigemitsu New York, Inc. The parties submitted a Stipulation of Settlement and Order, detailing accessibility alterations and cash payments. The Court reviewed the stipulation and identified several ambiguities regarding its execution, the retention of jurisdiction, remedies for breach, and the absence of party signatures. Citing these ambiguities and its lack of involvement in brokering the private settlement, the Court declined to retain jurisdiction for settlement enforcement. Consequently, the Court extended the deadline for the parties to submit a stipulation of dismissal or apply to reopen the action, with a conditional dismissal without prejudice if no timely action is taken.

Americans with Disabilities ActSettlement AgreementJurisdictionDismissal Without PrejudiceEnforcement of SettlementMagistrate JudgeContract InterpretationAmbiguityFederal CourtCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Fay & Signal-Stat Corp.

This case involves a dispute stemming from a stipulation made on August 7, 1952, between a petitioner (union) and a respondent (employer). The stipulation concerned the reinstatement of an employee named Pagan on probation in the employer's screw driver department. It was agreed that if Pagan's production fell below a certain standard, the matter would be submitted to arbitration. On December 18, 1952, the employer demanded arbitration regarding their right to discharge Pagan for non-compliance with the stipulation. The petitioner appealed an order denying a motion to stay arbitration. The court affirmed the order, stating that the August 7, 1952, stipulation did not intend to limit the arbitrator's authority, allowing the arbitrator to determine the resolution of the dispute, which could include Pagan's transfer or discharge.

arbitrationunionemployeremployeestipulationdischargeprobationproduction disputearbitrator authorityappeal
References
1
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. ADJ7904112
Regular
Nov 07, 2014

RUTH MANZANARES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on an alleged mutual mistake of fact in the underlying stipulation regarding the duration of temporary disability benefits. The stipulation incorrectly listed the end date of benefits as prior to the start date. The Board found this to be a clerical error, not sufficient cause to set aside the award. The Board recommended that the parties resolve the issue by correcting the clerical error directly with the WCJ or by submitting an amended stipulation.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardMutual Mistake of FactClerical ErrorTemporary Disability IndemnitySet Aside AwardWCJ Report and RecommendationBalance SheetCorrective ActionInformal Resolution
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 1,908 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