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. 97-CV-997A, 97-CV-977A
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pfohl Brothers Landfill Litigation

District Judge Arcara reviewed the objections to Magistrate Judge Foschio's February 12, 1999 Decision and Order concerning the removal of Moore v. Westinghouse and Weigel v. Westinghouse from state court. Magistrate Judge Foschio had denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand based on failure to join, granted the motions to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denied requests for attorney fees. After considering oral arguments on the defendants' objections, Judge Arcara affirmed Magistrate Judge Foschio's decision, finding it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, and both cases were remanded to the state court due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Question JurisdictionRemoval from State CourtRemand MotionSubject Matter JurisdictionTimeliness of ClaimsToxic TortsHazardous SubstancesCERCLA PreemptionStatute of LimitationsWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
15
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04584 [232 AD3d 209]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2024

Snyder v. AFCO Avports Mgt., LLC

This case concerns a trip-and-fall accident at Stewart International Airport, where plaintiff Kathy Snyder sustained injuries due to an alleged sidewalk defect. Defendants AFCO Avports Management, LLC, and Port Authority of New York & New Jersey moved for summary judgment, asserting the defect was trivial as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed key questions regarding the requirement of objective measurements for triviality, the examination of photographic evidence, and the admissibility of human factors expert opinions lacking such measurements. The court held that objective measurements are not a per se requirement, but defendants in this instance failed to meet their prima facie burden. The human factors expert's opinion was deemed conclusory and speculative due to the absence of objective measurements or a reasonably inferable estimate of the defect. Consequently, the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants was reversed, and the motion was denied.

Trip and fallSidewalk defectSummary judgment appealTrivial defect doctrinePhotographic evidenceObjective measurementsHuman factors expert testimonyExpert opinion admissibilityPrima facie burdenAppellate review
References
35
Case No. ADJ5686973
Regular
Dec 09, 2011

WOLDESLASSIE HABTESLASSIE vs. SEBASTOPOL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award concerning a custodian's knee injury. The defendant school district sought a higher permanent disability rating, arguing the prior rating was improperly calculated under the 1997 Schedule. The Board agreed that the calculation might have erred by not considering the higher of work restrictions or subjective/objective factors. The matter of permanent disability was deferred and returned to the trial judge for a new decision, while other aspects of the prior award were affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSebastopol Unified School DistrictWoldeslassie HabteslassiePermanent DisabilityApportionment1997 Schedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesWork RestrictionsSubjective and Objective FactorsPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Findings Award and Order
References
0
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Howe v. New York State Department of Corrections

The case involves an appeal by a claimant's employer and its workers' compensation insurance carrier challenging a $500 penalty imposed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board found that the carrier interposed objections to the claimant's benefits claim without just cause. The appellate court affirmed the penalty, holding that "just cause" under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (c) requires an objective rational basis and relevant, objective, and reasonable evidence to support controverting a claim. A subjective good-faith belief alone is insufficient. The court found that despite opportunities, the carrier failed to provide factual evidence to disprove the claim, relying instead on supposition and unfounded hope.

Workers' Compensation PenaltyJust CauseCarrier ObjectionsEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationObjective Rational BasisGood-Faith BeliefEvidence RequirementsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Episode USA, Inc.

Episode USA, Inc., a debtor in chapter 11 bankruptcy, guaranteed a non-debtor affiliate's lease. The affiliate defaulted, leading the landlord, L.H. Charney Associates, to file a claim against Episode. Episode objected to the claim, seeking to cap the unsecured portion under § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code and expunge the administrative priority claim. The court sustained Episode's objection, ruling that the § 502(b)(6) cap applies to debtor-guarantors and that the administrative priority claim was not justified as Episode received no benefit from the lease. However, the court rejected Episode's argument for a reduction of the unsecured claim based on mitigation, citing New York law.

BankruptcyLease GuaranteeLandlord-Tenant LawClaim ObjectionSection 502(b)(6)Administrative Priority ClaimDebtor-in-PossessionUnsecured ClaimsLease TerminationGuarantor Liability
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. Young (In Re Young)

This memorandum decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses an adversary proceeding where John S. Pereira, the Chapter 7 trustee, sought to deny the debtor, Ginger Young, a discharge in bankruptcy. The Trustee raised objections under three sections of the Bankruptcy Code, alleging the debtor failed to keep adequate records, knowingly withheld information, and could not satisfactorily explain the loss of assets totaling approximately $140,000 from a property sale and IRA/pension withdrawals. Judge Elizabeth S. Stong considered the debtor's defense of being a victim of severe domestic and financial abuse, supported by expert testimony from Laura Boyd, MSW. The court found the debtor's explanation credible and justified her inability to produce complete financial records and account for the asset disposition due to the traumatic circumstances. Consequently, all of the Trustee's objections to the Debtor's discharge were denied.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor DischargeTrustee ObjectionsDomestic AbuseFinancial AbuseRecord KeepingAsset DispositionJustificationCredibility
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,809 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