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

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

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

321 Henderson Receivables, L.P. v. Martinez

The case concerns a petition by 321 Henderson Receivables to purchase structured settlement payments from Pedro Martinez, Jr. under the Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA). Justice Alice Schlesinger examined whether the proposed transfer met the statutory requirements of being in the "best interest" of the payee and "fair and reasonable." The court found the transaction unreasonable, noting a significant discount rate (55.70% of current value) and a 16.39% interest rate. Additionally, Mr. Martinez, a 21-year-old with no income or assets, lacked a concrete and viable plan for the funds, indicating the transfer was not in his best interest. Consequently, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, emphasizing the SSPA's role in protecting vulnerable payees.

Structured Settlement Protection ActStructured Settlement TransferFactoring CompanyPayee ProtectionBest Interest StandardGeneral Obligations LawDiscount RateFinancial HardshipJudicial ReviewDenial of Petition
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

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. 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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
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

Greenwich Life Settlements, Inc. v. Viasource Funding Group, LLC

This is a diversity action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs Greenwich Life Settlements, Inc. and Greenwich Settlements Master Trust (collectively "Greenwich") bring this action against defendant ViaSource Funding Group, LLC. Greenwich claims to be a third-party beneficiary to a life insurance contract purchased from ViaSource by non-party Legacy Benefits Corp. ViaSource moved to dismiss Greenwich’s Corrected Amended Complaint on grounds of res judicata and failure to join an indispensable party, or alternatively, to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The court denied all of ViaSource’s motions, finding that res judicata did not apply as Greenwich was not in privity with Legacy in prior litigations, Legacy was not an indispensable party, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York.

Contract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryLife InsuranceViatical SettlementsRes JudicataCivil ProcedureIndispensable PartiesVenue DisputesDiversity JurisdictionTortious Interference
References
41
Case No. ADJ3767421 (SFO 0438615)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

MICHELLE ROUTSON vs. JOHN EVANS, D.D.S., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that found it lacked jurisdiction over a petition to transfer structured settlement payment rights. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision, holding that the five-year limitation under Labor Code section 5804 does not apply to commutations of compensation payments. Instead, such matters are governed by Labor Code section 5100, which allows the WCAB to commute payments at any time if certain conditions are met. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to determine if the proposed transfer satisfies section 5100 and related Insurance Code provisions.

Structured settlement transferPetition for ApprovalInsurance Code §10134Labor Code §5804commutationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardjurisdictionrescindedfive-year limitationLabor Code §5100
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bardouille v. Structure-Tone, Inc.

Thomas Bardouille and his wife appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County, after Thomas was injured in an electrical explosion. The initial Supreme Court decision had granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint, which alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence against various defendants including building owners, managing agents, and contractors. The appellate court modified the initial order, finding triable issues of fact concerning direction and control and the applicability of Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4), thereby reinstating certain claims against Structure-Tone, Inc., Deutsche Bank, Tishman Speyer Trammell Crow Limited Partnership, and Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc. The appeal also addressed a third-party action against Bardouille's employer, Ohm Electric, partially dismissing contribution and indemnification claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 due to the absence of "grave injury" but affirming contractual claims. The appeal from an order denying reargument was dismissed, and the initial order was modified and affirmed in part.

Personal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentnegligenceappellate reviewconstruction accidentelectrical explosionindemnificationcontributiontriable issue of fact
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,494 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