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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) seeking a permanent injunction against Rapid Settlements, Ltd., a factoring company. NASP alleged that Rapid Settlements improperly uses arbitration and enforces rights of first refusal and security interests in structured settlement payment rights without state-court approval, thereby circumventing state Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). The court found that Rapid Settlements' practices illegally circumvent the SSPAs, cloud title to annuitants' payment rights, raise transaction costs for NASP members, and place them at a competitive disadvantage. The court rejected Rapid Settlements' defenses, including preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act and an 'unclean hands' argument against NASP. The court granted NASP's application, permanently enjoining Rapid Settlements from using arbitration or enforcing unapproved rights of first refusal and security interests to effectuate transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

Structured SettlementsFactoring CompaniesAnnuity PaymentsArbitrationInjunctionState LawFederal LawStructured Settlement Protection ActsRights of First RefusalSecurity Interests
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an appeal and mandamus proceeding filed by Rapid Settlements, Ltd. and Rapid Management Corporation (Rapid) against SSC Settlements, L.L.C. and Stone Street Capital, Inc. (SSC). Rapid challenged a final summary judgment related to the transfer of structured settlement payments from William Prante. Rapid sought to stay litigation pending arbitration, arguing the dispute with SSC fell under an arbitration clause in their agreement with Prante, which also included a right of first refusal and a security interest. The appellate court denied the mandamus petition, vacated the trial court's denial of Rapid's motion to stay, and reversed parts of the summary judgment concerning Rapid's security interest and right of first refusal. The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to SSC and its injunction preventing Rapid from compelling SSC to arbitrate.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ProceedingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentStructured SettlementRight of First RefusalSecurity InterestEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelContract Law
References
42
Case No. 14-07-00880-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2009

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Symetra National Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Life Insurance Co. appealed a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award that directed them to make structured settlement payments to Rapid Settlements, Ltd., instead of the original payee, Paul Patterson. Symetra argued that the transfer lacked the required court approval under the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) and violated public policy, while Rapid Settlements asserted it was not a 'transfer' under SSPA, federal law preempted SSPA, and Symetra lacked standing. The court rejected Rapid's arguments, emphasizing that the SSPA mandates court preapproval for structured settlement payment transfers to protect payees and their dependents. Consequently, the court held that the arbitration award violated Texas public policy by effectuating an unapproved transfer. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the arbitration award was vacated.

Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)PreemptionStandingGarnishmentTransfer of PaymentsAnnuity IssuerTexas Law
References
20
Case No. 01-15-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an appeal by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance & Annuity Company (Appellants) against Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC and Sara Swain (Appellees) regarding a trial court's approval of a structured settlement payment rights transfer. Sara Swain, the payee, sought to transfer partial monthly payments to Peachtree, leading to a "Servicing Arrangement" approved by the trial court. This arrangement allowed Peachtree to receive the full monthly payments, retain its assigned portion, and remit the remainder to Swain, without requiring MetLife to directly divide payments. MetLife challenged this, asserting the arrangement improperly modified contracts, contravened the Texas Transfer Statute, and imposed an involuntary business relationship. The Appellee's brief argues for the affirmation of the trial court's decision, emphasizing the legality of the servicing arrangement under Texas's principles of contract assignability and principal-agency law, and affirming the transfer as being in Swain's best interest.

Structured SettlementPayment Rights TransferServicing ArrangementContract AssignabilityPrincipal-Agency LawBest Interest DeterminationAppellate ReviewTexas Transfer StatuteLegal PrecedentAnnuity Issuer Obligations
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Appellants Rebecca Coffey, Angela Douglas, Donna Kisor, and Elizabeth Wallace appealed summary judgments dismissing their claims against Singer Asset Finance Company, Settlement Capital Corporation, and Merrick Bank Corporation. Appellants had previously settled personal injury lawsuits, receiving structured payments, and later took loans from appellees, using their future settlement payments as collateral. They sought to void these security interests, arguing they were prohibited by the insurance code, structured settlement documents, and public policy, contending the pledges constituted unlawful assignments or commutations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the loan transactions created security interests, not assignments or commutations, and were thus permitted under the insurance code. Furthermore, the court found that the appellants had either waived or were estopped from asserting anti-assignment provisions in their original settlement agreements, and that these transactions did not violate public policy.

Structured SettlementsSecurity InterestsAnti-Assignment ClausesWaiverEstoppelPublic PolicyAnnuity ContractsInsurance CodeTexas LawLoan Agreements
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Appellants Gilbane Building Company and Zurich American Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee Keystone Structural Concrete LTD. Gilbane, as a general contractor, had subcontracted Keystone for a construction project. A Keystone employee was injured and sued Gilbane for negligence, settling for $2 million. Gilbane, having paid $1 million of the settlement, then sued Keystone for breach of a contractual indemnity agreement, breach of contract for not providing primary insurance coverage, and breach of contractual safety obligations. Gilbane also sought reformation of the contract and claimed Keystone failed to disclose another insurance policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the indemnity provision was unenforceable under the express negligence rule, there was no breach of contract regarding insurance priority or safety duties, and Keystone had no duty to inform Gilbane of the additional insurance policy.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnityBreach of ContractExpress Negligence RuleInsurance CoverageSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction ProjectWorkers' CompensationContract ReformationDuty to Inform
References
28
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 01-05-00988-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Gilbane Building Company and Zurich American Insurance Company appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Keystone Structural Concrete, LTD. The core issues involved a contractual indemnity claim and several breach of contract claims stemming from an injury to a Keystone employee on a construction project. Gilbane sought to recover a $1 million settlement it paid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the indemnity agreement was unenforceable due to its failure to satisfy the express negligence test. Furthermore, the court found no breach regarding insurance priorities, safety obligations, or a duty to inform Gilbane about an additional insurance policy, thereby denying Gilbane's attempts to reform the contract or recover damages.

Contractual IndemnityBreach of ContractSummary Judgment ReviewExpress Negligence RuleInsurance Coverage DisputeSubrogationContract ReformationMutual MistakeTexas Labor CodeConstruction Subcontract
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

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
Showing 1-10 of 2,657 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